Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutArborist Report 984000107 & 106Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC 104 North Laurel Street, Suite 110 Port Angeles, WA 98362 Office: (360) 504-3825 Email: contact@peninsulauf.com Web: www.peninsulauf.com Pollack Shoreline Tree Trimming Date: Sunday, May 20, 2018 Client: Brian Pollack Email: brian@stansellglass.com Phone: (253) 804-6377 Cell: (253) 571-0236 Project Parcels: 98-4000-107 98-4000-106 Project Address: *No Address* Nearest address 3401 Paradise Bay Road, Port Ludlow, 98365 Neighborhood: 3365 - PARADISE BAY ESTATES; PARADISE VIEW ESTATES Prepared by: John Bornsworth Ecologist ISA Board Certified Master Arborist@ #PN-7955BM ISA Municipal Arborist@ Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Reviewed by: Chelsea Drum, M.S. Certified Forester Forest Ecoloqist O 2018, Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC All rights reserved. SUMMARY Our Board -Master Certified Arborist evaluated approximately 20 shoreline grown, native trees at the above two properties for health, risk and to advise on their management. The entirety of both properties is within Jefferson County's Shoreline Master Program ("SMP") jurisdiction and classified as Shoreline Residential. Jefferson Counties GIS Maps show the property as neither Landslide Hazard or Erosion Hazard, though the properties are high -bank shoreline bluffs, on the order of approximately 60 feet. . All the trees identified on the property, except for three, are in good health and structure. These trees can be successfully pruned according to Jefferson County shoreline master program, and do not constitute a significant vegetation removal. The other three trees are evaluated as having a high risk due to suppressed forest canopy or prior branch failure. We recommend removal for the three high-risk trees. Shoreline ecological function and values will not be degraded following the specifications in this report. Tree pruning will not affect level of shoreline shading provided by the trees. Certified. Licensed. Bonded. Insured. General Contractor No. PENINUF841 NE. Certified Arb rists—Tree Risk Evaluation—Tree Preservation Experts +'etlandBialogj —Plant Ecolagists—Environmental Consulting. estoratio Ecology—Invasive Plant Control—Sustainable Landscaping May 20, 2018 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Recommendations INTRODUCTION Brian Pollack contacted Peninsula Urban Forestry ("PUF") in May 2018 with a request to inspect and evaluate shoreline trees and recommend pruning objectives. All trees are within Jefferson County designated shoreline residential. While the parcels are not labeled as geologically hazardous in Jefferson Counties maps, they are growing on a vertical to near vertical high -bank shoreline of approximately 100 vertical feet. Our biological inspection, evaluation and analysis, identified risk and recommended treatments are included in this letter. Please contact Peninsula Urban Forestry with questions you may have regarding this report. A specific list of our scope of evaluation: 1) Evaluate shoreline trees for health and subsequent pruning recommendations. 2) Provide management recommendations for the trees. Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC employees or consultants visited the property on May 9t", 2018. This report summarizes the data collected during our site reconnaissance and assessment, our conversations regarding the project, and our professional opinions and recommendations. The results and recommendations of this report represent our professional opinion compiled from on-site forensics, information provided to us, referenced material and our experience. Our recommendations are compiled with industry standards, best -available -science and currently accepted best management practices. This report is intended for the exclusive use of the Client and its agents and for specific application to the referenced property. Use this report to assist in future management decisions of subject plants and properties. Our evaluation does not cover the entire tract of land but only trees within the general vicinity of the structures on site. Further survey and investigatory work is required for a more full-scale forest management opinion. OBSERVATIONS, FINDINGS & ANALYSIS Trees examined are all native to western Washington and include Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), red alder (A/nus rubra) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). Growing within the shoreline area are roughly 20 mature trees and 10 adolescent trees. All subject trees are located either upland of a coastal high -bank, on the crest of the bluff, or on the bluff face. The slope has a northeastern aspect, is generally 100 vertical feet over roughly 60 horizontal feet with a view of Mutiny Bay and the Twin Spits. The slope biology is characterized as heavily vegetated, mixed canopy, mixed cohort range, with mixed herbaceous and woody plants. Roughly 10% of the slope is current bare ground. No indications of rilling, surface water movement over the crest, or other types accelerated erosion were observed. Evergreen tree canopy cover exists at 100%, shrub canopy cover exists at -60% and ground cover stratum at -90%. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife shows no mapped Priority Habitat Species. �http_:llaps`wrlfvu_+n+.aovl.�ahsonh,wc.l .', 5/10/18). The estuarine and marine wetland is mapped as potential aquatic habitat. www.peninsufauf.com Page 2 114 20, 2018 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Recommendations COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS Tree Trimming Procedures Tree pruning methods on the property will consist of mostly canopy raising, with additional limb -tip reductions. Pruning objectives will consist of view maintenance and enhancement. All trees surveyed on the property display a normal height to diameter ratio and normal live crown ratio. Removing 25% living foliage from these trees will not generally impair their health or cause tree mortality. Following SMP 18.25.310.(2).c.i, no more than 25% of foliage is prescribed for removal in this plan. Using the methods of canopy raising and limb -tip reduction, no more than 25% of the total tree canopy will be removed. In addition, we recommend no larger than 4 -inch diameter branches removed in this way and all branches and foliage be kept on the slope. Retaining these trimmings will increase rates of rain -fall interception and decrease surface water velocity, both adding to slope stability and decreasing potential erosion. Retaining trimmings on slope will also increase detrital availability for shoreline food/energy transport and increase ground nesting habitat potential. Tree Risk & Mode of Failure Tree 1, 2 & 3 are evaluated as having a high risk of tree failure. The targets for said trees are future structures on the property and general walking areas within the landscape. Habitat tree conversions are not recommended in this residential setting. After removing these three trees, total tree canopy will remain at 100%. The red alder does not produce year-round stormwater buffering nor does it shade the aquatic habitat. The two western hemlocks prescribed for removal are suppressed trees whose canopies are currently less than 20% their normal density. See Appendix B: Tree Risk Methodology. Per SMP 18.25.310.(2).d.vii, given the trees species and susceptibility to wood decay pathogens, trimming of the trees is not sufficient to address the hazard. While the western hemlocks could be retained on site, we do not recommend retaining the large red alder on site. Given its size and proximity to other healthy vegetation, the red alder will need to be pieced down rather than taken in whole. The smaller pieces will not function efficiently as habitat in the shoreline. If possible, the contractor should cut red alder chunks at approximately 10 feet in length. These pieces could be left on site to aide in marine habitat diversity. We do not recommend mitigation for the removal of the three threes. Given the sites complex ecosystem and presently dense tree canopy, the installation of additional trees would exasperate growing conditions for the naturally grown trees. The limiting factors in tree growth after compensatory tree installation will reduce overall forest resiliency in the system and create opportunity for tree decline and disease. www.penirisulauf.com Page 3 114 May 20, 2018 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Recommendations Summary of Tree Prescriptions Tree Species Height DBH* Distance Distance Risk No. (Common name) to OHWM to target Qualifier 1 Tsuga heterophylla -25 -8 -40 feet -20 feet High (western hemlock) feet inch 2 Tsuga heterophylla -20 -9 -40 feet -20 feet High (western hemlock) feet inch 3 Alnus rubra -70 -24 -65 feet -30 feet High (red alder) feet inch 4-24 Varied, see Low Observations. www.peninsulauf.com Page 4 114 May zo, 2=8 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Recommendations RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend the following actions: 1. For all trees growing within the shoreline bluff face, crest and 10 feet upland: I. Apply canopy raising pruning & limb -tip reduction pruning techniques to maintain view of both parcels subject of this report. II. Remove no larger than 4 -inch diameter branches in this manner. III. Remove no more than 25% living foliage in this manner. Future pruning may not exceed a 25% cumulative total. IV. Retain limbs and foliage on slope. V. No soil disturbance or root disturbance of any kind shall occur 2. Mitigate risk of Tree 1 (western hemlock): I. Full above -ground tree removal. II. Retain limbs, foliage and trunk on site. III. No soil disturbance or root disturbance of any kind shall occur 3. Mitigate risk of Tree 2 (western hemlock): I. Full above -ground tree removal. II. Retain limbs, foliage and trunk on site. III. No soil disturbance or root disturbance of any kind shall occur 4. Mitigate risk of Tree 3 (red alder): I. Full above -ground tree removal. I. Contractor shall be careful not to significantly damage nearby trees during removal process. II. Remove limbs, foliage and trunk from site. I. Unless tree can be removed in 10 foot or larger chunks. These larger chunks could be retained on site. III. No soil disturbance or root disturbance of any kind shall occur www.peninsulauf.com Page 5 114 May 20, 2018 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Recommendations CLOSING Work for this project was performed and this report prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Myself, nor Peninsula Urban Forestry, has any current or prospective interest in the plants or properties discussed. Acceptance of this report acknowledges receipt and agreement with Peninsula Urban Forestry's attached Assumptions & Limiting Conditions. Thank you for the opportunity to evaluate your trees and landscape. We appreciate your business and look forward to working with you. Please do not hesitate to call or email with questions or concerns. Peninsula Urban Forestry provides excellent science -based ecological and land stewardship services. John Bornsworth President Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC john@pen insu lauf. corr, Ecologist ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® #PN-7955BM ISA Municipal Arborist® Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Executive Advisory Panel, Washington Community Forestry Council Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC 104 North Laurel Street, Suite 110 Port Angeles, WA 98362 Contractor's License: PENINUF841 NE www.peninsulauf.corn Page 6 114 May 20, 2018 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Recommendations APPENDIX A: REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, E., Morrison, D. & Wallis G. (1996). Common Tree Diseases of British Columbia, Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service. Victoria, BC. Dunster & Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2006 Assessing Trees in Urban Areas and the Urban -Rural Interface, US Release 1.0. Silverton: Pacific Northwest Chapter ISA. Dunster, Julian A., E. Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly. 2013. Tree Risk Assessment Manual. Champaign, Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture. Gilman, Edward, An Illustrated Guide to Pruning, 3rd Edition. International Society of Arboriculture. Delmar, Cenage Learning ©. Clifton Park. NY. 2012. Print. Mattheck C & Breloer H, 1994, The Body Language of Trees: A handbook for failure analysis. The Stationary Office. London, UK. Schwarze, Francis W. M. R. Diagnosis and Prognosis of the Development of Wood Decay in Urban Trees. Rowville: ENSPEC, 2008. Print. www.12eninsulauf.com Page 9 114 May zo, 2os8 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Recommendations APPENDIX B: TREE RISK BAULUXTION METHODOLOGY Trees are self -optimizing mechanical structures. They tend to react to mechanical and environmental stresses by growing more vigorously in areas of high stress and less vigorously in areas of low stress. An expert understanding of this stress reactionary mechanism allows us to make informed judgements regarding the current conditions of trees. The general method of evaluating tree health and structure is named the visual tree assessment (VTA) method. VTA is the identification and classification of visual clues and tree characteristics. The accumulation of these compensatory mechanisms and other characteristics of phenotypic plasticity are key factors in VTA. Risk is the product of probability and consequences. In tree risk, we evaluate probability of tree -part failure with probability of impact, and we evaluate that against level of consequences derived from failure. A tree's risk is a dynamic concept based on subjective interpretations by a qualified evaluator. Tree Risk Assessors evaluate tree risk as either "Low", "Moderate", "High", or "Extreme". Tolerance of that interpreted tree risk is entirely decided by the tree owner. Trees are living biological organisms; the only way to eliminate tree risk entirely is to remove all trees within an impact area of a target. See Matrix 1 & 2 below. All trees display some aggravating conditions such as some leaf loss, wood branch dieback, nutrient depletion, drought, root disturbance, colonizing fungi, internal non -damage induced decay, bacteria, insects and more. It's the task of the Tree Risk Assessor to identify, evaluate and analyze these aggravating conditions and grade them and their influences in an integrated fashion, looking at whole -tree ecology and surrounding environment. For trees to have risk, they must have a likelihood of failure, and a likelihood of impacting a designated target. Targets can be structures, thoroughfares, utility boxes, parking areas, steep slopes, other trees and any other object which could potentially become damaged or conflicted with tree -part failure. We evaluate likelihood of impact and likelihood of damage associated with trees and their targets. Not all tree -parts are capable of the same impact and liability, as such different tree -parts are classified differently. A single weak branch which overhangs a house does not necessarily make the entire tree a high risk. The potential risk a tree owner is willing to accept is the sole responsibility of the tree owner/manager and any applicable governing laws. The best course of action when managing large quantities of potential tree risk (either low, medium or high risk) is to actively participate and encourage the yearly monitoring of trees by a qualified professional. Additional information on Tree Risk Methodology in Appendix A. The tree risk methodology used for this report was developed by the International Society of Arboriculture ("ISA") in 2013. Tree Risk Assessment Manual, authored by Dr. Julian Dunster and published by the ISA is the industry standard for the assessment of tree risk. AlW.nr.E7r7���°;: Page 10114 May zo, 2=8 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Recommendations SUPPORTING PHOTOS: Figure 1 Tree 3: High-risk red Alder www.peninsulauf.com Page 7 114 t j r J ` l JJ�� c'�r� � 4 ' f :�,�1: � sl iW� �� i,r t� ! ,��3t � i� i. .� .. ' {t, .. i � �. � � _ •. F . y r r� ' �� ' �� '. AFP ; e Y.. ���r w i � ��V , �� � . ��' ►,: r ,. � ti f.. .a � e y J ✓+ +til May zo, 2o18 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Recommendations The ANSI standard for risk assessment and ISA's Best Management Practices., Tree RiskAssessment defines three levels of tree risk assessment. Level 1: Limited visual Level 2: Basic Level 3: Advanced Some common limitations of Tree Risk Assessments are outlined below: • Tree risk assessments consider known targets and visible or detectable tree conditions. Normally undetectable conditions are not assessed or advised on. • Tree risk assessments represent the condition of the tree at the time of inspection. • The time period for risk categorization should not be considered a time guarantee for the risk assessment. • Only those trees specified in the assignment are assessed, and assessments are performed within the limitations specified. • Even healthy, structurally stable trees may fail in atypical weather conditions. Matrix 1. Likelihood of Failure and Impact (Dunstser, 2013) Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impacting Target Very Low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Unlikely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrix 2. Risk Rating (Dunster, 2013) Likelihood of Failure and Consequences of Failure Impact 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 www.peninsulauf.com P age 11 114 May 20, 2oi8 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Recommendations Some options for mitigation of tree risk include: Acce tance of risk.- All vegetation comes with some inherit risk. Most often this risk is tolerable and will have no significant effects on risk potential. Normally, tree benefits far outweigh associated risks. Retain and monitor for chan es: When a tree has some level of potential risk but not enough to warrant a more extensive mitigation. Most retain and monitor plans recommend a return time -frame of 1-3 years. Move offending target from damage radius.' If target is not fixed, this can be the simplest of mitigation techniques. A4odi&probabilitvoffailure: This mitigation includes techniques like stress -load - reductions, propping, cabling, bracing and habitat conversions. Full removal of tree risk: Full removal of offending tree or tree parts (branches). Roles and Responsibilities of Tree Risk: The proper roles of Tree Risk Assessors (Certified Arborists with additional qualification as a Qualified Tree Risk Assessor) and Tree Risk Managers (owners of trees) are very different. These roles are clearly delineated in two publications which are generally accepted guidelines for tree risk assessment in the arboricultural industry: Tree Care Industry Association. 2011. American National Standard for Tree Care Operations — Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Maintenance — Standard Practices (Tree Risk Assessment a. Tree Structure Assessment) (A300, Part 9) Tree Care Industry Association, Manchester, NH. 14pp. Smiley, E. T., N. Matheny, and S.J. Lilly. 2011. Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL. 81 pp. The Tree Risk Assessor's role includes the following responsibilities, as defined in a scope of work or project assignment: • Evaluate and classify the likelihood of a tree failure impacting a target. • Evaluate the potential consequences of a tree failure. • Record and explain findings to the client; • Determine tree risk; and Provide options for treatment to mitigate risk. The role of the Tree Risk Manager (the tree owner, property manager, or controlling authority) includes the following responsibilities: • Meet a duty of care; • Determine the scope of work; • Specify the desired level of assessment; • Choose among risk mitigation options; • Decide the level of acceptable risk, and • Prioritize work. www. pen insr.1lauf.com Page 12 114 May 20, 2o3.8 Peninsula Urban Forestry APPENDIX G: A.5SUMPTIONS & LIMITING LIABILTIBS Tree Recommendations 1. Any legal description provided to Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC assumes no responsibly for verification of ownership or locations of property lines, or for results of any actions or recommendations based on inaccurate information. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or other governmental regulations, unless explicitly stated otherwise. 2. Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC assumes no responsibilities for legal matters in character. Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC assumes all property appraised or evaluated is free and clear, and is under responsible ownership and competent management. 3. Any evaluation or assessment carried out was restricted to the property and the plants or landscapes within the Scope of Assignment. No assessment of any other plants or landscapes has been undertaken by Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC. The conclusions of this report do not apply to any zones, landscapes, trees, plants, or any other property not explicitly covered in the Scope of Assignment. 4. The total monetary amount of all claims or causes of action the Client may have as against Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC, including but not limited to claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract, shall be strictly limited to solely the total amount of fees paid by the Client to Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC pursuant to the Agreement for Services as dated for which this Assignment was carried out. Further, under no circumstance may any claims be initiated or commenced by the Client against Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC. or any of its directors, officers, employees, contractors, agents, or Assessors, in contract or in tort, more than 12 months after the date of this Assignment. 5. Although Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC has taken care to obtain all information from reliable sources and to verify the data insofar as possible, Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC does not guarantee and is not responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others b. Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC shall not be required to testify or attend court due to any report unless mutually satisfactory contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such Services as described in a Consulting Arborist Agreement. 7. Unless otherwise required by law, possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the parties to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC. 8. Neither all or any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed to anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without prior expressed written consent of Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC. Particularly as to value conclusions, identify of Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC., or any reference to any professional society or to any initialed designation conferred upon Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC as stated in its qualifications. www.peninsulauf.com Page 13 114 May 20, 2018 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Recommendations 9. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC, and the Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specific value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event or upon any finding to be reported. 10. All photographs included in this report were taken by Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC during the documented site visit, unless otherwise noted. 11. Sketches, drawings and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of any information generated by architects, engineers or other Peninsula Urban Forestry, LI -Cs and any sketches, drawings or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of such information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC as to the sufficiency or accuracy of the information. 12. Unless otherwise agreed, (1) information contained in this report covers only the items examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and (2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, climbing, or coring. Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC makes no warranty or guarantee, express or implied, that the problems or deficiencies of the plans or property in question may not arise in the future. 13. This report is based on the condition of the trees, landscape, or plants at the time of inspection. 14. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. This report is only valid if reproduced from a digital file. 15. Unless explicitly stated as "exact", all measurements provided have an error range of±15% www,peninsulauf.com Page 14 114