Tree Appraisal. Prepared For: Jean Salls Ed Delahanty

Transcription

1 Admiral's Cove Beach Club Coupeville, W A Admiral's Prepared For: Jean Salls Ed Delahanty Cove Beach Club Coupeville, W A November 22, 2013 Prepared By: Katy Bigelow PNW ISA member # PN-6039A PNW Certified Tree Risk Assessor # 199 Registered Consulting Arborist # 490

2 Admirer's Cove - Coupeville, WA 11/22113 Katy Bigelow arboristkaty@gmail.com November 22,2013 Jean Salls Ed Delahanty Admiral's Cove Beach Club Coupeville, W A Dear Mrs. Salls and Mr. Delahanty: Thank you for asking me to evaluate damage to trees at the Admiral's Cove Beach Club development in Coupeville, WA. I completed my assessment and site visit on November 13, Summary Twelve trees were damaged by topping and mal-pruning. Total costs to complete restorative tree repair, ongoing tree repair, tree removal and re-inspection are valued at: $ Assignment, Scope and Limitations T was asked by Jean Salls and Ed Delahanty to value damage to trees growing on a slope southwest of two homes in Admiral's Cove on Whidbey Island. To evaluate the trees addressed in this letter 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). Tools r use to make an assessment are limited to binoculars, compass, mallet and laser pointer unless otherwise noted. 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. The Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition, by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers is widely used in the industry to determine the value of plants in the landscape. To determine values I utilized the protocol of the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. This systematic process includes factors that contribute to the value of plants such as size, species, condition, and location. In the book, five methods are outlined to assess casualty losses and damage from trespass or accidents. They include: The Reduction oj Property Value Method (or Market Approach) is generally used in cases where the damage or loss is large enough to negatively affect the value of the property. <@' Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 2 oflo

3 Tfee Appraisal Admiral's Cove - Coupevi lie, W A 11/22/13 o In this case, the damage was not great enough to warrant this approach. The Income Approach Method is generally used when the damage was to a nursery or producing orchard. o Th:is is not income producing property and therefore, th:ismethodology was not used. The Trunk Formula Method is generally used when the damage or death is of plants and trees too large to replace. o While trees that were damaged were too large to replace, I chose not to use this method since it was unclear in the field which trees had been previously damaged versus newly damaged. The Cost of Cure Method is generally used when the damage is small enough that curative measures can be taken to correct the damage over a reasonable period of time. o This method was used to value the cost of curative measures for all the trees I assessed. The Replacement Cost Method is generally used when damage is great enough the plant materials died or will not recover. The Replacement Cost Method is based upon the total cost to replace the plant or amenity of comparable species and size in the same place. o As all the trees that were damaged will likely live, this method was not used. Observations Some of the homes in the Admiral's Cove on Farragut Drive are situated at the top of a steep southwest facing slope. According to Island County definitions this slope is considered a landslide hazard area. This designation includes any areas, especially bluffs and other areas along shorelines that are susceptible to landslides because of any combination of bedrock, soil, slope, slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other physical factors. In October 2013, twelve trees growing on the slope southwest of the home at 1350 Farragut Drive and the adjoining home to the northwest were topped or, reduced in height using incorrect pruning methods for the sustainability of the tree and views. Specifically, five Douglas-firs were topped, one Douglas-fir was re-topped and six Douglas-fir trees were mal-pruned. There are many young trees growing nearby damaged trees that have not been topped or pruned but are just starting to extend tall enough to impact views. All of the trees assessed were entered with the use of spurs to complete work. Due to the small size of the tree trunk at the area the trees were worked on, worker positioning using spikes inflicted many holes in thin barked trunks. While some of the tree work debris was left on the slope, some appeared to have been taken away. Except for one tree, based on tree parts found on the ground it was near impossible to determine if the rest of the trees I assessed had been previously topped. There are other trees <@' Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 3 of 10

4 1rce ''"'ppi<>l>al Admi,,,l'sCove-Coupeville, WA growing in the same area have been historically topped (Photo 1)that 1did not address in this report. The size of topping wounds varied approximately between three and ten inches in diameter and occurred in the top ten percent of the upper canopies. Some of the wounds were between branching areas and some were directly above live branches. While some of the pruning to remove branches was correctly performed, some limbs were removed using flush cuts against the trunk. Pruning also tended to remove foliage only from one area of the tmnk, near the upper canopies (Photos 2 & 3) leaving a "top-heavy" canopy. All twelve trees I assessed are in fair condition and based on lower structure and foliage health, assumed to be in fair condition before work was completed. When damage to a tree has occurred but not enough to kill the specimen, treatment to return it to a reasonable approximation of its original condition is calculated with the Cost of Cure Method. In this case, it is my professional opinion that the twelve damaged trees wi11live and that at least eleven of them can regain close to average structure with minor restorative activities completed over time. This is due to the minimal percentage of the overall trees that were damaged and the age of the trees at the time of damage. I capped the length oftime for restorative costs at five years. Although pruning and selective tree removal may be needed past that time, I believe this is a reasonable amount of time to complete work to restore most of the trees close to their original growing condition or remove those that die from damage. There will also be a solid basis from a few initial annual inspections to move forward with minimal need for further inspections. Costs to complete my recommendations have been compiled in the worksheet below. This was calculated by collecting information from local service companies who specialize in the type of work required - specifically, tree pruning and tree removal. Washington State Sales Tax is then added as it is an added expense to the land owner. Average first year cost to re-prune the damaged trees, remove one tree, remove debris from site: $2200 Monitoring and re-assessment one year after pruning and three years after pruning (6 person $ 1251hr): $750 Second vear restorative pruning costs and small tree removal: $2000 Third through fifth year restorative pruning costs and small tree removal: $4000 Sub-Total: $8950 Washington State Sales Tax (all work, minus monitoring) 8.7%: $ Total Cost of Cure: $ <@' Prepared by Kary Bigelow Page 4 of 10

5 Tree _~prrai.ul Admiral's Cove - Coupevi lie. WA 11/22113 Discussion and Recommendations Topping is generally not an acceptable way of reducing the height of a decurrent tree. More importantly, topping often results in an increase in growth at the area of topping, not all of which is stably attached to the main trunk and often attached to an area near open wounds. Some of the trees that were topped can be removed to the ground without fear that the stability of the slope will be compromised. These can be selectively chosen during restorative pruning to choose those well spaced from each other to ensure that fewer trees grow into the view over time. This also includes the larger fir on the site, which was the only tree clearly identified as being re-topped, Trees that have been pruned to remove foliage mid-trunk now have the risk of their trunks snapping mid canopy. Removing foliage from only one area of the trunk can compound the force of the wind greater into the canopy that is left on top of the tree. Losing branches below pruning is also a high probability. I believe up to one third of the smaller (less than three inches diameter at breast height) Douglasfir trees in the area T assessed can be removed without fear of encouraging a landslide event (Photo 4). When any tree work is completed, debris should be removed from the slope to avoid a buildup of dead vegetation. Mounds of vegetative debris can become a home to rodent or other small mammals that can actually cause more soil erosion under debris with their activity. Over time, trees that are young now but that are starting to grow into the view can be window pruned. This means pruning the area of the canopy that encroaches the view to remove selective branches from multiple heights on the trunk to provide a peek-a boo view through the remaining canopy. Replanting new species of small ground covers and shrubs can help reduce the possibility of land movement. I strongly suggest replanting the lower slope with species that can retain water and help with soil retention after the initial tree work has been completed. The lower area of the bank: I assessed is easily accessed from the road below the slope. Specifically I recommend installing: Salal (Gaultheria shallon), Sword fern ipolystichum munitums, Mahouia imahonia species), Red or Yellow twig dogwood (Comus stononiferay and Snowberry (Symphoncarpos albus). Thank you very much for calling me for your arboricultural concerns. Katy Bigelow PNW ISA member # PN-6039AT PNW Certified Tree Risk Assessor # 199 Registered Consulting Arborist # Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 5 of 10

6 Admiral's Cove-Coupeville, WA 11/22113 Photos Photo 1: Showing one newly topped tree and one re-topped tree (largest tree on-site). <Jj)' Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 6 er io

7 Admiral's Cove - Coupeville, WA 11/2'l1\3 Photo 2: Incorrect pruning to remove foliage Prepared by Kary Bigelow Page 7 oflo

8 Admiral's Cove - Coupevi IIe, W A 11/22113 Photo 3: Incorrect pruning to remove foliage mid-trunk. <@' Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 8 of 10

9 Admiral's Cove - Coupeville, \VA 11/22/13 Photo 4: Showing new young firs just starting to grow into view corridors. <@' Prepared by Kary Bigelow Page 9 or io

10 Tcce Apprai;.al Admiral's Cove - Coupeville, WA Expanded 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 adviee only of arboriculrural 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. I further certify that I am a member in good standing of the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) and the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). I have been employed full time in the field of arboriculture for more than ten years. Katy Bigelow PNW ISA member # PN-6039AT PNW Certified Tree Risk Assessor # 199 Registered Consulting Arboristdo # 490 <lii' Prepared by Katy Bigelow Page 10 of 10