Loading...
014 Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan, Greenline Building B, 6-26-2018 MANAGED FOREST BUFFER MANAGEMENT PLAN at the GREENLINE BUILDING B SITE Weyerhaeuser Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 File #17-104236-UP & 17-104237-SE Revised June 26, 2018 August 24, 2017 PREPARED FOR: Federal Way Campus, LLC 11100 Santa Monica Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90025 PREPARED BY: GILLES CONSULTING Brian K. Gilles, Consulting Arborist ISA Certified Arborist # PN-0260A ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist # RCA-418 ISA TRAQ Qualified ISA TRAQ Certified Instructor Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 2 of 31 This Managed Forest Buffer Maintenance Management Plan is adopted by: Federal Way Campus, LLC 111000 Santa Monica Boulevard # 850 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Signature and Title Date And, The City of Federal Way Brian Davis Community Development Director 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Signature and Title Date Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 3 of 31 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 4 Evaluation of Trees & Status Determination .................................................................. 4 Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................. 5 INVENTORY OF THE FOREST TODAY .................................................................... 9 Additional Testing .......................................................................................................... 9 CURRENT VEGETATIVE INVENTORY .................................................................... 9 Tall Trees Observed: ....................................................................................................... 9 Small Native Trees/Small Shrubs Observed ................................................................. 10 Low Growing Native Shrubs and Ground Covers Observed: ...................................... 10 Invasive Species Observed: .......................................................................................... 10 Landscape Plant Species ............................................................................................... 10 Summary of the Managed Forest Buffer Trees ............................................................. 11 KEY PLAN ELEMENTS ............................................................................................... 11 Invasive Species Control............................................................................................... 11 Trees Protection Measures During Construction .......................................................... 13 General Maintenance Plan ............................................................................................ 14 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 14 Recommended Plant Pallet ........................................................................................... 15 WAIVER OF LIABILITY ............................................................................................. 15 ATTACHMENTS ........................................................................................................... 17 Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 4 of 31 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This plan is to manage the Managed Forest Buffer (MFB) that runs parallel to Weyerhaeuser Way South on the Greenline Building “B” project property into the future. There is a proposal to convert the 16-acre parcel into a large commercial project with associated parking lots, drivelanes, loading docks, and landscape features. This plan has been drafted to meet the “letter of the law” as well as the “spirit of the law” as laid out in the Weyerhaeuser Company Concomitant Pre-Annexation Developer Agreement (“Agreement”) dated August 23, 1994, as well as the 1994 Federal Way City Code (FWCC). As such, the following pages contain information on current conditions, risk assessment of the trees, tree protection measures during construction, long term management goals, standards of care, and re-planting plans. INTRODUCTION Eric LaBrie, President of ESM Consulting Engineers, on behalf of the Federal Way Campus, LLC, contracted with Gilles Consulting to develop this Management Plan for the Managed Forest Buffer on the Greenline Building B Project site located on King County Parcel Number 614260-0200 Through the Agreement between the Weyerhaeuser Company and the City of Federal Way, managed forest buffers were required to be created, managed, and maintained. The Agreement spelled out where the buffers were to be located and how they were to be managed. Because it is a ‘concomitant’ agreement, the provisions of the Agreement carry forward to new owners and new uses of the property. This Agreement is tied to the 1994 FWCC. This Forest Management Plan brings together the key elements of these documents in how it is written and how it is expected to be carried out. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY Evaluation of Trees & Status Determination First, an inventory of the existing vegetation within the buffer was conducted. This included documenting the species present, their relative size, and their condition. Each tree was tagged with a unique number and its trunk measured at 4.5 feet above the average ground level. Following the 1994 FWCC Section 22-1568(c)(6), we used the definition of a significant tree to grade the status of each tree encountered. As defined in 1994 FWCC Sec. 22- 1568(b) a Significant Tree is a tree that is: 1) Twelve inches in diameter or 37 inches in circumference measured four and one- half feet above the ground; and Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 5 of 31 2) In good health; and 3) Not detrimental to the community (e.g. is not diseased, dying, or likely of falling into public open space or right-of-way, etc.) or obscuring safe sight distance requirements. Significant trees shall not include red alder, cottonwood, poplar or big leaf maple. Using Sec. (c) Standards, calculations for tree retention were calculated and a Tree Retention Plan has been included in the permit documents not as a part of the MFB Plan. This is because all of the trees in the MFB are to be retained—unless they pose a threat to life and property. These retained trees shall be protected as defined in the Tree Protection Measures section below. Trees were also evaluated for risk to determine whether or not any of the trees pose an unacceptable level of risk to life and property. The goal was to identify any potential hazard trees and manage them down to a safe level during clearing and grading phases of the project. We followed the protocol of the International Society of Arboriculture known as Tree Risk Assessment Qualification, TRAQ. This is a scientifically based process that includes a roots to shoots evaluation of each tree to determine health, structural stability, and likelihood of failure. Trees were then rated as Significant or Non- Significant based upon criteria a – c above and the size of their trunk at 4.5 feet as measured with a diameter tape measure. Risk Assessment Tree Risk Assessment must be taken seriously on this project and all of the Campus development projects. This is due to the physiology of the trees themselves, their growth in dense stands, the soils, and the large storms that descend upon the region irregularly. When trees grow in a forest such as this, they depend on the trees around them to buffer them from the wind and other storm impacts. This results in a different physically structured tree than the same species of the same age growing in an open setting such as a field, a park, or a pasture. Trees growing in a dense forest are tall and skinny. They do not have broadly tapered bases or large buttress roots. They do not need them due to the buffering effect of the forest as a whole. Their job is to grow tall and fast to catch sunlight. If they do not keep up with the neighboring trees, they get shaded out and slowly decline and die. Therefore, their internal resources are spent on height growth. This is relevant and important in that, when dense forest trees are suddenly opened to the wind and storm elements, by clearing of adjacent trees, they are instantly vulnerable to windthrow in severe weather. This is because, as noted above, they do not have adequate structure in their lower trunks and buttress roots. This can be seen when driving forested lands in the northwest and looking at wind-thrown trees at the edges of recent clear cuts. Foresters have known this for over 100 years and have a term for it. They call it, “New Edge.” New Edge refers to the trees on the edge of a recent clear-cut. There can be a Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 6 of 31 high percentage of tree failures near the ‘new edge’ created by the clearing/logging of trees in a dense forest due to the growth characteristics noted above. It can take a tree or line of trees along a newly cleared edge many years to develop larger and roots and lower trunks to withstand large storm loads. Soils and saturated soils also play a huge role in tree risk assessment. The region is known to have areas of hard pan or clay deposits below the surface. Water can build up on top of these impenetrable layers and restrict roots from penetrating deep. This can predispose a tree to fail if it is growing over one of these dense layers and the soil is saturated and a storm overloads the strength of the roots and soil.  Risk Management Goal: o Minimize or eliminate any injury, death, or property damage due to newly exposed tall evergreen trees that remain in the MFB.  Risk Management Action: o Preliminary Risk Assessment:  In the development of this document, trees in the MFB were assessed for risk.  Targets were identified as people using the right-of-way, the construction workers building the new facilities, the proposed new facilities, and the people using the new facilities.  Trees that were found to have an unacceptable level of risk are recommended for management actions during the clearing and grading process of the project. o During Construction:  The Forest Manager shall be on site during the clearing and grading process to perform a risk assessment of the trees slated to remain in the MFB—the “new edge trees.”  This is important for one specific reason. As a forest is cleared many more items become visible that were not visible in the dense forest. These newly seen items may impact the wind firmness and stability of the new edge trees.  The Forest Manager shall use current International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices for Tree Risk Assessment to systematically determine whether any of the trees slated for retention pose an unacceptable level of risk.  Working with the clearing and grading contractor, the owner’s representative, the surveyor, and property manager, the environmental consultant, the Forest Manager will recommend actions to be taken on individual trees to reduce the risk of injury, death, or property damage.  Management options will begin with pruning and removal will be the last option. A parallel option will be the Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 7 of 31 creation of Habitat Trees, Nurse Logs, and Brush Piles. These are three critically important elements in urban and suburban forest that benefit desirable wildlife such as song birds and frogs.  Please refer to Attachment 2, Creation and Benefits of Habitat Trees, Nurse Logs, and Brush Piles below for important information concerning these vital forest elements. o Ongoing Risk Assessment:  The Challenge:  Trees are vulnerable to windthrow for as many as 10 years after the creation of a ‘new edge.’ It can take that long for the new edge trees to grow sufficient root structures and to broaden the bases of the trunks to withstand the stresses of wind and storms.  Actions:  The Forest Manager shall use current International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices for Tree Risk Assessment to systematically determine whether any of the trees slated for retention pose an unacceptable level of risk.  Frequency: o The Forest Manager will respond to specific requests from property occupants/staff, landscape maintenance staff, or the public to assess the level of risk for specific trees. o For the first four years:  The Forest Manager will walk site every summer and perform a Level I Risk Assessment of the trees in the MFB.  Trees identified as having defects or health issues will be given a Level II Risk Assessment.  Please refer to Attachment 3, Tree Risk Assessment Protocol for more detailed information.  This work must be done in the summer so that any trees declared a risk to life and property can be properly managed prior to the onset of the storm season. o No Risk Assessment will be done in year five. o Beginning in year six, Risk Assessments shall be done once every two years; or if called in to look at Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 8 of 31 specific trees by the owner’s representative or the property manager to evaluate specific trees or groups of trees of concern.  The Forest Manager will walk the property and perform a Risk Assessment on the trees within the MFB.  Working with the owner’s representative and property manager, the Forest Manager will recommend actions to be taken on individual trees to reduce the risk of injury, death, or property damage. o All trees deemed a potential hazard do not need to be cut down completely.  They can be converted into Habitat Trees/Wildlife Snags, Nurse Logs, and Brush piles.  These three features are key elements in a healthy urban/suburban environment. They are critical to dozens of desirable wildlife species—especially songbirds, frogs and other amphibians.  Please refer to Attachment 3, The Benefit of Habitat Trees, Nurse Logs, and Brush Piles in Urban and Suburban Areas for important information on these key items.  While no one can predict with absolute certainty which trees will or will not fail, we can, by using this scientific process, assess which trees are most likely to fail and take appropriate action to minimize injury and damage. Photo #1: Photo from the north end of the Managed Forest Buffer, typical. Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 9 of 31 Photo #2: Photo from the south end of the Managed Forest Buffer, typical. INVENTORY OF THE FOREST TODAY The MFB is today a combination of native trees, landscape trees, and native shrubs typical of lowland Puget Sound. An existing sewer easement and gravel trail are located within the MFB, and can be observed in Photo 1 and 2 above. Areas adjacent to the easement are maintained with lawn areas and small deciduous trees, such as red alder. Additional Testing The trees all presented signs and/or symptoms that were readily discernible using the visual tree evaluation system. These signs and/or symptoms indicate extensive internal decay and/or structural defects in some trees and solid trunks and lack of disease in others. Therefore, no additional tests were performed during this site visit. CURRENT VEGETATIVE INVENTORY The present plant community in the MFB is a combination of native plant and shrubs typical of lowland Puget Sound native forests and several landscape species that were introduced in years past. Plants observed in the summer and winter of 2016 included: Tall Trees Observed:  Big Leaf Maple, Acer macrophyllum  Cascara, Rhamnus purshiana  Douglas Fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii  Oregon Ash, Fraxinus latifolia  Pacific Madrone, Arbutus menziesii  Pacific Willow, Salix lasiandra  Paperbark Birch, Betula papyrifera  Red Alder, Alnus rubra Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 10 of 31  Western Hemlock, Tsuga heterophylla  Western Red Cedar, Thuja plicata  The trees were rated on a scale from Dead, to Dying, to Poor, to Fair, to Good, to Very Good, to Excellent. As noted above, the shrub and ground cover layers consisted of plants typical of lowland Puget Sound that include: Small Native Trees/Small Shrubs Observed  Vine Maple, Acer circinatum  Western Hazelnut, Corylus cornuta  Indian Plum, Oemleria cerasiformis  They are all in Fair to Excellent Condition. Low Growing Native Shrubs and Ground Covers Observed:  Salal, Gaultheria shallon  Trailing Blackberry, Rubus ursinus  Snowberry, Symphoricarpos alba  Oregon Grape, Mahonia nervosa  Bracken Fern, Pteridium aquilinum  They are all in Fair to Very Good Condition. Invasive Species Observed:  Himalayan Blackberry, Rubus armeniacus  English Ivy, Hedera helix  English Holly, Ilex aquifolium.  While small in number they appear healthy at this time. Landscape Plant Species Landscape Plants are those plants that are not native to lowland Puget Sound, (at or before European/American colonization), and were intentionally installed by previous developers, grounds managers, gardeners, maintenance staff, and forest managers. Some of the plants are native to other areas of Washington and the Pacific Northwest but not to this portion of Washington. By definition, they are non-native. Landscape Plants observed within the MFB include:  American Beech, Fagus grandifolia  Flowering Cherry, Prunus sp.  European Mountain Ash, Sorbus aucuparia  Japanese Maple, Acer palmatum  Norway Maple, Acer plantanoides Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 11 of 31  Giant Sequoia, Sequioadendron giganteum  Green Ash, Fraxinus pennsylvanica  Unknown Deciduous Summary of the Managed Forest Buffer Trees A complete data set of all trees identified within both the Greenline Building A and B projects can be found in the Tree Data for 32 Acre Site dated 26 June 2018. There were 527 significant trees documented on the parcel; 80 are in the MFB. They can be summarized in the following ways:  Status: o There are 80 trees that meet the 1994 FWCC definition of Significant Tree in the MFB. o There are a total of 527 Significant Trees on the parcel.  Health: o There are a few trees that were rated as Poor, Dying, or Dead on the parcel.  These are grouped together as Non-Viable and are by definition Non-Significant. o The remaining 607 trees in the MFB and interior project site that have a status of Significant Tree, have a condition rating of Fair, Good, Very Good, or Excellent.  Retention: o All trees, both significant and non-significant, will be retained in the MFB. KEY PLAN ELEMENTS Invasive Species Control As noted above, King County has an active Noxious Weed Board who are charged by law to control invasive species within King County. These laws are there “ . . . to protect local agriculture, [think plants that deny crop growth such as Canada Thistle], native species and ecosystems, recreation, [think Milfoil clogging boat launches and swimming beaches at area lakes], residents, [think plants that cause serious poison or allergic effects for people, livestock, or pets], and our current way of life.” (Quoted from the King County Noxious Weed Board website with minor editorial comments.) Definitions used by the King County Noxious Weed Control Board include:  Noxious Weed: o A non-native plant that when established is highly destructive, competitive, or difficult to control.  Control: Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 12 of 31 o In a given year, prevent all seed production and dispersal of all propagative parts capable of forming new plants.  Eradicate: o Completely eliminate a noxious weed within an area of infestation. King County uses the following classifications:  Regulated Class A Weeds: o These weeds are the highest priority in the state due to their significant potential impact and limited distribution. o Property owners throughout Washington are required to eradicate Class A weeds.  Regulated Class B Weeds: o Class B weeds are regulated in counties where they are limited in distribution or where they are a local priority. King County has designated a list of such plants. o Property owners in King County are required to control these plant species.  Regulated Class C Weeds: o Class C weeds are generally widespread, but may be selected on a local level. The King County Weed Board has a designated list of such plants. o Property owners in King County are not required to control these plant species. However, control is recommended and property owners are restricted from purchasing and installing them.  Non-Regulated Class C Noxious Weeds: o There is a list of plat species developed by the State Weed Board and adopted by the King County Weed Control Board designating these plants. o They are generally plants that negatively impact the county but are already widespread. o Property owners in King County are not required to control these species, but control is recommended where feasible. o Himalayan Blackberry and English Ivy are on this list.  Class C Weeds of Concern: o The King County Weed Control Board recognizes these species as non- native and invasive. o Control or containment of existing populations is recommended and the Board discourages new plantings of species on this list. o English Holly is on this list.  Please refer to the King County Weed Control Board website for additional information: o http://www.kingcounty.gov/services/environment/animals-and- plants/noxious-weeds/weed-control-board.aspx Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 13 of 31 The maintenance plan below includes the removal of all noxious weeds including Himalayan Blackberries, English Laurel, English Holly, and English Ivy. And, any other species on the King County Noxious Weed List that invade the MFB in the future. They will be replaced with plants from the Native Plant Replacement Pallet below. Trees Protection Measures During Construction While the development team is committed to maintaining the integrity of the MFB, maximizing the development potential for the property is also important. Therefore, the trees right along the edge of the MFB, the “new edge trees,” will be impacted by the grading required to create a functional facility. This includes the construction of a retaining wall and filling the area to create as safe of a working environment and parking area as is reasonable. To manage this, the trees on the edge, where the MFB meets clearing, grading, and development, will need to be dealt with on a case by case basis depending upon their size, condition, and proximity to the edge of the MFB and the retaining wall. Retention of the trees will depend upon whether or not an adequate critical root zone can be maintained in order for the tree to survive long-term and whether or not large roots need to be severed that may leave the tree unstable and vulnerable to windthrow. The Forest Manager will determine whether or not an adequate root zone can or cannot be maintained. Based upon this determination, individual trees will be recommended for reduction, removal, or replacement. This decision will be made by the Forest Manager on a case by case basis in consultation with the general contractor, the retaining wall contractor, and the surveyor who will be delineating this line. In general, in order for trees to survive the stresses placed upon them in the construction process, tree protection must be planned in advance of equipment arrival on site. If tree protection is not planned integral with the design and layout of the project, the trees will suffer needlessly and possibly die. With proper preparation, often costing little or nothing extra to the project budget, trees can survive and thrive after construction. This is critical for tree survival because damage prevention is the single most effective treatment for trees on construction sites. Once trees are damaged, the treatment options available are limited. The minimum Tree Protection Measures in Attachment 4, Tree Protection Measures are on separate sheets that can be copied and introduced into all relevant documents such as site plans, permit applications and conditions of approval, and bid documents, so that everyone involved is aware of the requirements. These Tree Protection Measures are intended to be generic in nature. They will need to be adjusted to the specific circumstances of the site that takes into account the location of improvements and the locations of the trees. Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 14 of 31 General Maintenance Plan Once the project is complete and the Landscape Plan is executed, a landscape maintenance contractor shall be engaged to perform maintenance on the property; this includes the maintenance of the MFB. The maintenance of the Buffer will be done in accordance to the General Maintenance Plan noted in Attachment 5, below. As noted below, there shall be an annual meeting of the property manager/supervisor/owner’s representative, the in-house or contracted landscape maintenance crew leader, and the Forest Manager. Together they will review the work of the past year and discuss the work planned for the next year. The Forest Manager shall review the work in relation to the goals of this management plan. Specific maintenance requirements and replacement planting schedules are located below in Attachment 5, Maintenance Schedule below and measures shall be enacted to ensure that the goals of this plan are being met. The Forest Manager shall provide the City of Federal Way with an annual report documenting the current condition of the Forest Buffer and the quality of the work performed in the past year. The report shall be forwarded to the City on or before the 30th of December each year. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The MFB is an asset to the property and the community. The MFB is in overall very good condition and can continue to provide benefits in this fast growing city for decades to come with the adherence to this Plan. Listed below, is a pallet of plant materials recommended for replanting of the MFB and the right-of-way area between the eastern edge of the Buffer and the edge of the road or sidewalk. Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 15 of 31 Recommended Plant Pallet Large Native Trees: Big Leaf Maple, Acer macrophyllum Bitter Cherry, Prunus emarginata Douglas Fir, Pseudotsuga menziesii Mountain Ash, Sorbus americana Pacific Madrone, Arbutus menziesii Western Hemlock, Tsuga heterophylla Western Red Cedar, Thuja plicata Pacific Dogwood, Cornus nuttallii Pacific Willow, Salix lucida, ssp. Lasiandra Small Native Trees/Tall Native Shrubs Black Hawthorn, Crataegus douglasii Cascara, Rhamnus purshiana Indian Plum, Oemleria cerasiformis Service Berry, Amelanchier alnifolia Vine Maple, Acer circinatum Western Hazelnut, Corylus cornuta Native Shrubs and Native Ground Cover Plants Salal, Gaultheria shallon Evergreen Huckleberry, Vaccinium ovatum Ocean Spray (Creambush), Holodiscus discolor Oregon Grape, Mahonia nervosa Pacific Ninebark, Physocarpus capitatus Pacific Rhododendron, R. macrophyllum Red Elderberry, Sambucus racemosa, ssp. pubens Red Huckleberry, Vaccinium parvifolium Red-Flowering Currant, Ribes sanguineum Red-Osier Dogwood, Cornus sericea Snow Berry, Symphoricarpos albus Sword Fern, Polystichum munitum Wild Rose or Nootka Rose, Rosa nutkana WAIVER OF LIABILITY There are many conditions affecting a tree’s health and stability, which may be present and cannot be ascertained, such as, root rot, previous or unexposed construction damage, internal cracks, stem rot and more which may be hidden. Changes in circumstances and conditions can also cause a rapid deterioration of a tree’s health and stability. Adverse weather conditions can dramatically affect the health and safety of a tree in a very short amount of time. While I have used every reasonable means to examine these trees, this evaluation represents my opinion of the tree health at this point in time. These findings do not guarantee future safety nor are they predictions of future events. The tree evaluation consists of an external visual inspection of an individual tree’s root flare, trunk, and canopy from the ground only unless otherwise specified. The inspection may also consist of taking trunk or root soundings for sound comparisons to aid the evaluator in determining the possible extent of decay within a tree. Soundings are only an aid to the evaluation process and do not replace the use of other more sophisticated diagnostic tools for determining the extent of decay within a tree. Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 16 of 31 As conditions change, it is the responsibility of the property owners to schedule additional site visits by the necessary professionals to ensure that the long-term success of the project is ensured. It is the responsibility of the property owner to obtain all required permits from city, county, state, or federal agencies. It is the responsibility of the property owner to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and permit conditions. If there is a homeowners association, it is the responsibility of the property owner to comply with all Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) that apply to tree pruning and tree removal. This tree evaluation is to be used to inform and guide the client in the management of their trees. This in no way implies that the evaluator is responsible for performing recommended actions or using other methods or tools to further determine the extent of internal tree problems without written authorization from the client. Furthermore, the evaluator in no way holds that the opinions and recommendations are the only actions required to insure that the tree will not fail. A second opinion is recommended. The client shall hold the evaluator harmless for any and all injuries or damages incurred if the evaluator’s recommendations are not followed or for acts of nature beyond the evaluator’s reasonable expectations, such as severe winds, excessive rains, heavy snow loads, etc. This report and all attachments, enclosures, and references, are confidential and are for the use of the client concerned. They may not be reproduced, used in any way, or disseminated in any form without the prior consent of the client concerned and Gilles Consulting. Thank you for calling Gilles Consulting for your arboricultural needs. Sincerely, Brian K. Gilles, Consulting Arborist ISA Certified Arborist # PN-0260A ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist # RCA-418 ISA TRAQ Qualified ISA TRAQ Certified Instructor Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 17 of 31 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 - EXHIBITS .................................................................................... 18 ATTACHMENT 2 - CREATION AND BENEFITS OF HABITAT TREES, NURSE LOGS, AND BRUSH PILES ......................................................................................... 19 ATTACHMENT 3 - TREE RISK ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL .............................. 22 ATTACHMENT 4 - TREE PROTECTION MEASURES ......................................... 24 ATTACHMENT 5 - GENERAL MAINTENANCE PLAN ........................................ 28 ATTACHMENT 6 - BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................ 31 Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 18 of 31 ATTACHMENT 1 - EXHIBITS Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 19 of 31 ATTACHMENT 2 - CREATION AND BENEFITS OF HABITAT TREES, NURSE LOGS, AND BRUSH PILES There are occasions where hazardous trees need not be completely removed. Shortening is the preferred method in these types of areas rather than complete removal. Standing dead trees, also known as “vertical structure” in forest ecology terms, provide important wildlife habitat. Recent studies at the University of Washington have shown that the third most significant reason for the decline of songbirds in the Puget Sound region is the lack of standing dead trees. (The primary reason for the decline of desirable wildlife is loss of habitat. The second reason is predation by dogs, cats, Grey Squirrels, and Opossums.) These studies reveal that as many as 54% of desirable urban wildlife utilize standing dead trees, nurse logs on the ground, or brush piles in one or more important life cycle. For instance, Black Capped Chickadees must excavate a new cavity every spring in order to successfully mate and produce a brood of offspring. The opportunity exists in the MFB to remove the dangerous portions of hazardous trees and leave the snags-Habitat Trees, nurse logs, and brush piles for the benefit of wildlife. Trunk sections can be carefully placed on the ground as nurse logs. The logs, if in contact with the ground, soak up moisture and release it slowly throughout the summer. This supports plants and animals in the immediate area. Brush piles can be strategically placed for birds and mammals to use as safe areas also have important wildlife benefits. These two measures have the added benefit of reducing the cost because a tree service does not need to do as much clean up or removal. The tree service selected can spend a few extra minutes on the top of each snag to make the cut look like it was snapped off in the wind— jagged and irregular. This enhances the aesthetic appeal of the tree. Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 20 of 31 Brush Piles Brush piles can be thought of as a way to provide shelter. In general, the concept of shelter is important to urban wildlife. In his book, Landscaping for Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest, Wildlife Biologist Russell Link writes, “Shelter, (also called cover) is a place to raise young, hide from predators, and avoid the heat, cold, and wind. Shelter also provides a place to feed, play, and rest safely. The quality of shelter is particularly important for young animals in a nest. Unlike an animal that can flee when a predator approaches, young birds or small mammals must rely entirely upon the cover and the camouflage of the nest itself.” Different birds and mammals will use different parts of the brush pile as Table 1 Wildlife That Use an Average-size Brush Pile, from page 123 of Mr. Link’s book notes: For instance, insects will be attracted to the inside of brush piles that will become food or other animals. “The inside of the pile can also protect wildlife from sun, rain, and predators. During strong winds, birds that would ordinarily use an evergreen tree for evening shelter may instead use a brush pile located on the ground out of the wind. Far into a pile, mammals and some birds find nesting cover in the tight network of strong twigs. The outside, where the sticks protrude from the pile, provides places for birds to perch and sign, preen, and catch insects. If the base of the pile contains large limbs or logs, salamanders, snakes, and lizards may hibernate there. Ants, worms, beetles, and other insects will life and feed in the rich soil beneath a pile.” Birds That Will Use the Inside of the Brush Pile: Birds That Will Use the Outside of the Brush Pile: Mammals That Will Use the Inside of the Brush Pile: Reptiles and Amphibians That Will Use the Base of the Brush Pile: Bushtits Grouse Chipmunks Alligator Lizards Chickadees Hummingbirds Cottontail Rabbits Salamanders Dark-eyed Juncos Jays Fox Snakes Flycatchers Pheasants Ground Squirrels Toads Golden-crowned Sparrows Robins Mice Turtles Grouse Song Sparrows Rabbits Pheasants Towhees Shrews Quail Warblers Skunks Song Sparrows White-Crowned Sparrows Voles Thrushes Woodpeckers Weasels Towhees Woodrats White-Crowned Sparrows Wrens TABLE 1. WILDLIFE THAT USE AN AVERAGE--SIZE BRUSH PILE Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 21 of 31 “When snow covers a brush pile, a complex array of snow free spaces and runways provides important habitat for protection and foraging by small mammals.” From pages 122 & 123, Landscaping for Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest by Russell Link. Brush piles can be simple hand thrown piles of bio-debris and rocks or they can be large designed piles. Photo A: Brush piles can be simple piles of cut branches or raked leaves. Drawing A: Brush piles can be complex things that are planned and constructed. Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 22 of 31 ATTACHMENT 3 - TREE RISK ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL To evaluate the trees for risk, as well as to prepare this report, I drew upon my 30+ years of experience in the field of arboriculture and my formal education in natural resources management, dendrology, forest ecology, plant identification, and plant physiology. I followed the protocol of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for tree risk assessment. Published in 2011, the Best Management Practices, Tree Risk Assessment, ANSNI A300 Part 9 was developed to aid in the interpretation of professional standards and guide work practices based upon current science and technology. Using this process, now called the Tree Risk Assessment Qualification, or TRAQ for short. This is a scientifically-based process ensuring an examination of the entire site, surrounding land and soil, as well as a complete look at the tree itself. In examining each tree, I looked at such factors as: size, vigor, canopy and foliage condition, density of needles, injury, insect activity, root damage and root collar health, crown health, evidence of disease-causing bacteria, fungi or virus, dead wood and hanging limbs. Additional Testing In the future, there may be trees that have signs and symptoms of decay or disease as well as indications of good health and structure. These specific trees may require some additional testing to fully determine a risk level. These tests could include a form of structural analysis to determine the amount of sound wood and decayed wood in the trunk or it could include analysis at a pathology lab to determine what pathogens are present and at what levels. Wood analysis could be as simple as a long drill bit on a cordless drill, a core sample, or a resistance test. Failure While no one can predict with absolute certainty which trees will or will not fail, we can, by using this scientific process, assess which trees are most likely to fail and take appropriate action to minimize injury and damage. Levels of Assessment The new protocol has three levels of assessment:  Level 1, Limited Visual Assessment: o This is a visual assessment from a specified perspective of an individual tree or population of trees in order to identify obvious defects or specified conditions. This can be a walk by or a drive by review. o A limited visual assessment typically focuses on identifying tees with imminent and/or probable likelihood of failure. o Typically used for large populations of trees and often done on a routine schedule or after severe storms. Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 23 of 31 o The assessor performs a visual assessment, looking for obvious defects such as dead trees, large cavity openings, large dead or broken branches, fungal fruiting structures, large cracks, and severe leans. o Level I Risk Assessments are generally used to identify trees that need immediate management or trees that have indications of decline or poor structure that need a Level II assessment.  Level II, Basic Assessment: o This is a detailed visual inspection of a tree and its surrounding site and a synthesis of the information collected. o It requires that the assessor walk completely around the tree looking at the site, buttress roots, trunk, and the entire canopy o Level II may include the use of basic tools such as tape measures, binoculars, magnifying glass, mallet, clinometer, trowel, shovel, probe, and more. o The Level II Basic Assessment includes conditions that ae detected from the ground—internal, belowground, and upper crown factors may be impossible to see or difficult to assess and may remain largely undetected.  Level III, Advanced Assessment: o Advanced assessments are performed to provide detailed information about specific tree parts, defects, targets, or site conditions. o They are usually conducted in conjunction with or after a Level II Basic Assessment if the tree risk assessor needs additional information and the client approves the additional service. o Specialized equipment, data collection and analysis, and/or specialized expertise are usually required for advanced assessments. These assessments are therefore generally more time intensive and more expensive. o Procedures and methodologies should be selected and applied as proportionate, with consideration for what is reasonable and proportionate to the specific conditions and situations the risk manager/property owner should consider the value of the tree to the owner or the community, the possible consequences of failure, and the time and expense to provide the advanced assessment. Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 24 of 31 ATTACHMENT 4 - TREE PROTECTION MEASURES In order for trees to survive the stresses placed upon them in the construction process, tree protection must be planned in advance of equipment arrival on site. If tree protection is not planned integral with the design and layout of the project, the trees will suffer needlessly and will possibly die. With proper preparation, often costing little, or nothing extra to the project budget, trees can survive and thrive after construction. This is critical for tree survival because damage prevention is the single most effective treatment for trees on construction sites. Once trees are damaged, the treatment options available are limited. The following minimum Tree Protection Measures are included on separate sheets so that they can be copied and introduced into all relevant documents such as site plans, permit applications and conditions of approval, and bid documents so that everyone involved is aware of the requirements. These Tree Protection Measures are intended to be generic in nature. They will need to be adjusted to the specific circumstances of your site that takes into account the location of improvements and the locations of the trees. Note: The Tree Protection Measures outlined over the next several pages meet or exceed those as spelled out in the 1994 FWCC 1568(c)(6)a-g. That is, the fences will be 6 foot high, one foot higher than the code. There will be absolutely no construction activities, including storage of materials, equipment, vehicles, supplies, or debris within the tree protection zones behind the Tree Protection Fences. There will be no grade changes within the Tree Protection Zones. Any encroachment into the MFB will be discussed by the design team and a request will be made in advance to the Planning Department staff explaining the situation, what needs to be accomplished, why encroachment is a logical solution, and how the Significant Trees in the immediate vicinity will be protected. No encroachment will occur without prior written permission of the Forest Manager and the Planning Director or designee as required by 1994 FWCC 1568(c)(6)g. Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 25 of 31 TREE PROTECTION MEASURES 1. Tree Protection Fencing: a. Tree Protection Fences will need to be placed around each tree or group of trees to be retained. i. Tree Protection Fences are to be placed according to the attached drawing. 1. The area inside the fences is the Tree Protection Zone. 2. The area outside the fences is the work zone or the construction zone. ii. Tree Protection Fences must be inspected and approved by the Forest Manager prior to the beginning of any demolition or construction work activities. iii. Nothing must be parked or stored within the Tree Protection Fences—no equipment, vehicles, soil, debris, or construction supplies of any sorts. b. Signs: i. The Tree Protection Fences need to be clearly marked with the following or similar text in four inch or larger letters: “TREE PROTECTION FENCE DO NOT ENTER THIS AREA DO NOT PARK OR STORE MATERIALS WITHIN THE PROTECTION AREA Any questions or concerns, call Brian K. Gilles at Gilles Consulting @ 425-417-0850” 2. Cement Trucks: a. Cement trucks must not be allowed to deposit waste or wash out materials from their trucks within the Tree Protection Fences. 3. Canopy Pruning: a. The need to prune any tree canopies for construction clearance and worker safety will be made by the Forest Manager in consultation with the general contractor and the retaining wall contractor as well as the owner’s representative. b. Pruning will take into account the needs of equipment and the safety of the workers and the use of the parking lot. c. The pruning must be done by an International Society of Arboriculture, (ISA) Certified Arborist using current industry standard pruning techniques. (ANSI A300 Pruning Standards and ANSI Z131.1 Safety Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 26 of 31 Standards as well as all OSHA, WISHA, and local standards must be followed.) d. Plant debris can be chipped and utilized on site for the mulch under the trees. 4. Excavation: a. When excavation occurs near trees that are scheduled for retention, the following procedure must be followed to protect the long term survivability of the tree: b. The Forest Manager, or qualified designee, must be working with all equipment operators. i. The Forest Manager should be outfitted with a shovel, hand pruners, a pair of loppers, a handsaw, and a power saw (a “sawsall” is recommended). c. The Hoe: i. The hoe used at first must be a small landscape sized hoe with a thumb attachment. ii. The hoe must be placed to gently comb back the duff layer and upper layers of soil using the tines on the bucket. iii. All soil, spoils, and debris is to be moved away from the Forest Buffer. No storing or stockpiling of soil or any other materials is allowed in the MFB. d. Root Exposure and Pruning: i. When any roots of two inches diameter or greater are exposed, of the tree to be retained, the Forest Manager, or designee, shall hand dig the root and properly prune the root using the most appropriate sharp and clean tool from the list above. ii. This excavation procedure shall continue until Forest Manager, or designee, determines that the excavation is deep enough that no more significant roots will likely be exposed. e. The small hoe can then excavate down to its limits of depth. f. The larger hoe can then take over the excavation to the proper depth and of the rest of the site. 5. Putting Utilities Under the Root Zone: a. Boring under the root systems of trees (and other vegetation) shall be done under the supervision of the Forest Manager, or designee. This is to be accomplished by excavating a limited trench or pit on each side of the critical root zone of the tree and then hand digging or pushing the pipe through the soil under the tree. The closest pit walls shall be a minimum of 7 feet from the center of the tree and shall be sufficient depth to lay the pipe at the grade as shown on the plan and profile. b. Tunneling under the roots of trees shall be done under the supervision of the Forest Manager in an open trench by carefully excavating and hand Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 27 of 31 digging around areas where large roots are exposed. No roots 1 inch in diameter or larger shall be cut. c. The contractor shall verify the vertical and horizontal location of existing utilities to avoid conflicts and maintain minimum clearances; adjustment shall be made to the grade of the new utility as required. Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 28 of 31 ATTACHMENT 5 - GENERAL MAINTENANCE PLAN This General Maintenance Plan consists of two distinct parts: Part 1, Restoration and Tree Protection during Construction. Part 2: on-going annual maintenance to maintain the character of the MFB into the future. A crew of three, or more, skilled and trained staff will be the minimum per maintenance event. The crews must be outfitted with an insured vehicle that has all of the required power and hand tools, all needed safety and personal protection equipment required for each crew member, all needed supplies, and a means of off-site disposal of debris and waste that is not recycled on site. Part 1, Restoration and Tree Protection: As noted in the tree protection measures above:  The Forest Manager shall be on site to inspect the location and proper installation of the limits-of-disturbance/tree protection fences. o The fence installation must be approved and documented by the Forest Manager prior to the initiation of any clearing, grubbing, or construction work. o This shall be documented in a field report to the City.  As the forest is cleared for the development, the Forest Manager will be on site to work with the contractors to minimize damage to the roots of trees in the buffer. o This will be done by implementing the Tree Protection Measures, Section 5, Excavation, as noted immediately above.  As the forest is cleared for the development, the Forest Manager will still be on site to review any damage done to trees along the edge of the MFB and determine if any trees pose an unacceptable level of risk to property or the construction crews or others utilizing the site. o Any trees deemed an unacceptable level of risk will be documented and removed as part of the clearing and grading process. o These will be documented by the Forest Manager in a report to the City. o Replacement Trees will be installed as part of the landscape plan in accordance with replacement ratios required by the City.  Once the area of development and construction is cleared and graded, the landscape plan will be implemented as desired by the property owner and developer.  The landscape plan will be inspected by the Forest Manager as follows: o Plant materials will be inspected as they are unloaded from the truck.  The landscape contractor will call one week in advance and set a time and date for the trucks to arrive and the inspections to occur.  Plants will all conform to current American National Standards Institute, (ANSI), for Grade A top quality plant materials. o The Forest Manager will perform spot checks during installation to verify that proper installation procedures are being followed. Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 29 of 31 o The Forest Manager will perform a formal final inspection with the general contractor, the landscape installation contractor, the Landscape Architect, the Environmental Consultant, and the Forest Manager to insure that the plans have been properly fulfilled. Part 2, Annual Maintenance Years 1 – 3:  Year One Maintenance: o A Maintenance Event shall consist of the following work activities:  Litter Control.  All litter from the MFB and right-of-way must be picked up, removed from the site, and properly disposed of.  Plant Maintenance:  All newly installed plants are to be inspected, righted and re-staked if needed.  Dead branches and tops are to be properly pruned using current ANSI A300 Pruning Standards and sterilized sharp implements.  Plant Replacement:  Dead trees and shrubs will be inventoried during the September Annual Meeting of Staff, described below.  A discussion will be done to ascertain the cause of death of the plants.  Actions will be taken to remediate any landscape problems that lead to the plant death.  New plants will be ordered.  Re-placement plants will be installed in October or November.  Invasive species are to be removed.  Given the low level of invasion currently, manual removal is preferred.  However, if a rapid invasion occurs and an invasive species appears to be out of control, proper use of herbicides applied by a State of Washington Licensed Pest Control Applicator may be used.  There will be one maintenance event as described above once per month in Years 1, 2, and 3. o Annual Meeting of Staff and Reporting:  Each September, the Forest Manager will meet with the maintenance crew leader and the property manager/owner’s representative to review the work of the previous year.  The meeting will take place while walking the MFB and a copy of this maintenance plan will be the basis of the review and the report following. Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 30 of 31  Year Two Maintenance: o This will be the same as Year 1 with one addition: o Tree stakes will be inspected on all newly installed trees.  If appropriate, tree staking/tethering will be removed. This will apply to the majority of the trees. A few trees may need to be re- staked and checked at a later date.  Year Three Maintenance: o This will be the same as Year 1 with one addition: o Tree stakes will be removed from the remaining installed trees. Year Four Maintenance and Beyond: o After year three, the level of maintenance can be reduced to one maintenance event per quarter. The same maintenance activities and requirements shall prevail into the future. These include:  Litter Control.  All litter from the MFB and right-of-way must be picked up, removed from the site, and properly disposed of.  Plant Maintenance:  Dead branches and tops are to be properly pruned using current ANSI A300 Pruning Standards and sterilized sharp implements.  Invasive species are to be removed.  Given the low level of invasion currently, manual removal is preferred.  However, if a rapid invasion occurs and an invasive species appears to be out of control, proper use of herbicides applied by a State of Washington Licensed Pest Control Applicator may be used.  There will be one maintenance event as described above once per quarter in future years. o Annual Meeting of Staff and Reporting:  Each September, the Forest Manager will meet with the maintenance crew leader and the property manager/owner’s representative to review the work of the previous year.  The meeting will take place while walking the MFB and a copy of this maintenance plan will be the basis of the review and the report following. Managed Forest Buffer Management Plan for the Greenline Building “B” Site Weyerhaeuser Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Gilles Consulting June 26, 2018 Page 31 of 31 ATTACHMENT 6 - BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Dirr, Michael A. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants, Their Identification, Ornamental Characteristics, Culture, Propagation, and Uses. Champaign: Stipes Publishing Company, 1990. 2. Dunster, Dr. Julian A., R.P.F., M.C.I.P. Documenting Evidence, Practical Guidance for Arborists, First Choice Books, Victoria, BC, Canada. 2014. 3. Eric Allen, et al. Common Tree Diseases of British Columbia. Victoria: Canadian Forest Service, 1996. 4. Harris, Richard W, James Clark, and Nelda Matheny. Arboriculture, Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Vines. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2004. 5. Johnson, Warren T. and Lyon, Howard H. Insects That Feed on Trees and Shrubs. Ithaca: Comstock Publishing Associates, 1991. 6. Link, Russell, Landscaping for Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest, The University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 1999. 7. Matheny, Nelda P. and Clark, James R. Evaluation of Hazard Trees. 2nd ed. Savoy: The International Society of Arboriculture Press, 1994. 8. Matheny, Nelda P. and Clark, James R. Trees & Development, A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Savoy: The International Society of Arboriculture Press, 1998. 9. Mathews, Daniel. Cascade -- Olympic Natural History. Portland, Oregon: Raven Editions with the Portland Audubon Society, 1992. 10. Mattheck, Claus and Breloer, Helge. The Body Language of Trees, A Handbook for Failure Analysis. London: HMSO, 1994. 11. Pojar, Jim and MacKinnon, Andy. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Redmond, Washington: Lone Pine Publishing, 1994. 12. Pacific Northwest Chapter-ISA. Tree Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and the Urban/Rural Interface. Course Manual. Release 1.5. PNW-ISA: Silverton, Oregon, 2011. 13. Petrides, George A. and Wehr, Janet. A Field Guide to Eastern Trees, Eastern United States and Canada including the Midwest. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co mpany, 1998. 14. Scharpf, Robert F. Diseases of Pacific Coast Conifers. Albany, California: USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 521, rev. June 1993. 15. Sinclair, Wayne A., Lyon, Howard H., and Johnson, Warren T. Diseases of Trees and Shrubs. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1987. 16. Smiley, E. Thomas, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly, Tree Risk Assessment Best Management Practices, ANSI A300 Part 9: Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management —Standard Practices (Tree Risk Assessment a. Tree Structure Assessment). The International Society of Arboriculture Press. Champaign. IL. 2011. 17. Watson, Gary W., and Neely, Dan, eds. Trees & Building Sites. Savoy: The International Society of Arboriculture Press, 1995.