HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupplemental_Tree Survey ReportTree
Survey
Report
Lift
1A/
Gorsuch
Haus
April
26,
2016
PROVIDED
BY:
Jason
Jones
Board
Cer,fied
Master
Arborist
#RM-‐0734B
Aspen
Tree
Service
Inc.
Carbondale,
CO
81623
(970)
963-‐3070
mtnjones@gmail.com
Summary
I
have
been
asked
by
Design
Workshop
to
analyze
and
comment
on
the
tree
resource
located
on
the
site
of
the
LiX
1A/
Gosuch
Haus
property
located
at
the
base
of
Aspen
Mountain.
The
site
is
being
considered
for
re-‐development
and
there
are
numerous
trees
on
and
around
the
property.
While
it
is
in
the
best
interest
of
the
landowner
and
community
to
retain
as
many
trees
as
possible
while
developing
any
site,
it
is
important
that
the
trees
chosen
to
be
retained
can
tolerate
site
impacts,
will
not
present
an
elevated
level
of
hazards
to
the
property
or
its
users,
and
will
exist
as
long
term
assets
to
the
community
and
the
property.
I
have
visually
observed
the
trees
and
reviewed
the
plans
for
the
proposed
new
building
footprint
and
construc,on
and
determined
that
all
of
the
trees
on
the
site
would
require
removal
to
complete
the
planned
development
as
proposed.
I
have
provided
an
inventory
and
evalua,on
of
all
of
the
significant
trees
to
be
used
in
determining
planning
and
in
procuring
necessary
tree
removal
permits
from
the
City
of
Aspen
A
total
of
18
trees
with
total
diameter
of
243
inches
are
being
proposed
for
removal.
U,lizing
the
City
of
Aspen’s
formula
pertaining
to
tree
mi,ga,on
values,
a
total
of
$189,827.13 in
value
has
been
calculated
If
all
of
the
trees
being
requested
for
removal
were
mi,gated
at
full
value.
Due
to
factors
rela,ng
to
tree
health,
structure,
aesthe,cs,
placement
and
contribu,on
to
the
site,
it
is
my
opinion
that
the
individual
values
of
some
of
the
trees
that
are
designated
for
removal
would
likely
be
reduced
or
eliminated
upon
review
from
the
City
Forestry
Department.
There
are
three
trees
on
this
site
that
are
very
large
diameter
and
are
responsible
for
over
$120,0000
of
the
mi,ga,on
amount.
These
trees
are
in
overall
poor
condi,on
and
it
is
my
opinion
that
these
trees
should
not
carry
such
a
high
value
and
I
would
advise
the
ownership
to
request
a
reduc,on
in
this
amount
when
applying
for
tree
removal
permits.
Once
a
final
site
plan
is
developed,
trees
that
are
required
for
removal
are
iden,fied,
and
review
of
the
permit
applica,on
by
City
Forestry
department
is
performed,
a
precise
mi,ga,on
cost
could
be
determined.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
cost
of
new
trees
as
part
of
the
re-‐landscaping
on
the
site
would
be
generally
applied
towards
mi,ga,on.
Any
difference
in
the
amounts
would
then
be
due
as
a
cash
payment
to
the
city
before
a
tree
removal
permit
could
be
released.
Methodology
I
ini,ally
met
with
Jessie
Young,
Landscape
Architect,
with
Design
Workshop
on
March
29,
2016
.
We
reviewed
the
property,
discussed
the
plans
for
construc,on
and
she
pointed
out
all
of
the
the
trees
on
the
site.
I
then
visited
the
site
with
an
assistant
on
April
23rd
to
perform
my
assessment.
I
was
provided
with
a
site
map
with
tree
loca,ons
and
es,mated
diameters
at
the
,me
of
our
ini,al
mee,ng.
I
then
performed
a
visual
inspec,on
on
each
tree
located
within
the
boundaries
of
the
property.
I
re-‐measured
each
tree
at
approximately
4.5
feet
above
ground
level
with
a
diameter
tape
to
obtain
an
accurate
Diameter
Breast
Height
(DBH).
I
rounded
diameter
down
to
nearest
whole
inch
on
all
trees.
I
was
provided
a
base
map
from
which
I
numbered
and
labeled
each
tree
on
the
map.
Metal
tags
were
afached
to
the
north
side
of
each
tree
labelled.
Individual
trees
were
entered
into
the
afached
tree
inventory
worksheet
with
an
accurate
DBH,
condi,on
ra,ng,
and
a
maximum
mi,ga,on
value
based
on
the
formula
provided
in
the
City
of
Aspens
Title
13
ordinance
pertaining
to
health
and
quality
environment
sec,on
13.20.020.
This
ordinance
states
that
gambel
oak,
serviceberry,
and
chokecherry
trees
over
3
inches
DBH,
other
deciduous
trees
over
6
inches
DBH
and
conifer
trees
over
4
inches
in
diameter
will
require
a
permit
from
the
forestry
department
and
may
require
mi,ga,on
based
on
the
formula:
Basic
Value
=
$41.00
x
3.14
x
(D/2)2
Where:
D
=
the
diameter
of
the
tree
in
inches.
Trees
that
were
mul,-‐stemmed
were
measured
at
4.5
feet
above
ground
and
calculated
as
if
they
were
two
individual
trees
and
then
added
together.
Condi,on
values
were
assigned
as
a
result
of
visual
indicators
such
as
the
presence
of
dead
limbs,
signs
or
symptoms
of
disease/insects,
or
structural
defects.
Details
of
the
condi,on
scale
are
as
follows:
1)A
healthy,
vigorous
tree,
reasonably
free
of
signs
and
symptoms
of
disease,
with
good
structure
and
form
typical
of
the
species.
2)Tree
with
slight
decline
in
vigor,
small
amount
of
twig
dieback,
minor
structural
defects
that
could
be
corrected.
3)Tree
with
moderate
vigor,
moderate
twig
and
small
branch
dieback,
thinning
of
crown,
poor
leaf
color,
moderate
structural
defects
that
might
be
mi,gated
by
regular
care.
4)Tree
in
decline,
epicormic
growth,
extensive
dieback
of
medium
to
large
branches,
significant
pathogen
ac,vity
or
structural
defects
that
cannot
be
abated.
5)Tree
is
in
severe
decline,
highly
hazardous
or
is
dead.
Limits
of
the
Assignment
My
inves,ga,on
is
based
solely
upon
the
informa,on
noted
on
my
visits
to
the
site
in
March
and
April
of
2016.
I
have
not
performed
any
laboratory
examina,ons,
studied
soil
composi,on
or
employed
any
other
diagnos,c
techniques
beyond
visual
examina,on
of
the
trees
and
the
site.
I
have
developed
general
conclusions
of
tree
health
and
provided
recommenda,ons
based
upon
these
observa,ons.
Observations
Site
Description
The
property
is
located
at
the
base
of
Aspen
Mountain
Ski
Area
and
currently
includes
a
chairliX
and
mul,ple
outbuildings
related
to
the
ski
resort.
The
boundaries
extend
up
the
slope
to
a
na,ve
woodland
area
and
push
to
condominium
complexes
on
either
side.
The
majority
of
the
site
is
not
heavily
treed
with
a
very
small
por,on
of
the
site
having
any
tree
cover.
A
total
of
only
18
significant
trees
or
tree
groups
exist
on
the
en,re
site
that
will
require
removal
to
complete
proposed
development.
None
of
the
trees
appear
to
have
received
any
maintenance
or
supplemental
care
but
have
adapted
to
the
na,ve
condi,ons
present
at
the
base
of
the
mountain.
SpeciEic
Tree
Observations
Each
tree
was
evaluated
visually
and
entered
into
the
afached
tree
inventory
worksheet.
This
worksheet
contains
the
tree
species,
condi,on,
and
es,mated
mi,ga,on
value
based
on
the
City
of
Aspen
tree
removal
ordinance
formula.
Trees
#60-‐
Subalpine
fir
(Abies
lasiocarpa)-‐
13
inch
DBH.
This
tree
is
located
on
the
slope
below
the
exis,ng
chairliX
and
is
growing
very
close
to
the
stairway
leading
up
to
the
liX.
The
tree
is
in
good
condi,on
but
will
require
removal
as
it
silng
directly
in
the
proposed
building
footprint.
Trees
#61-‐64
Narrowleaf
cofonwood
(Populus
angus3folia
)
-‐There
are
a
group
of
3
large
cofonwood
growing
next
to
the
exis,ng
liXline.
These
trees
are
in
the
mature
to
over
mature
category
and
all
have
notable
deadwood
and
structural
defects.
All
three
of
these
trees
lie
within
the
area
where
the
new
proposed
chairliX
will
exist
and
would
require
removal
for
the
project
to
occur
as
planned.
The
mi,ga,on
value
of
these
three
trees
when
using
the
city
of
Aspen
formula
totals
$120.082.25.
Upon
review,
this
amount
seems
unreasonably
high
due
to
the
condi,on
and
contribu,on
of
the
trees.
Addi,onal
considera,on
beyond
the
overall
poor
condi,on
of
the
trees
that
should
be
noted
is
that
the
large
diameter
these
trees
show
is
not
in
line
with
the
height,
spread
and
density
of
a
similar
diameter
tree
of
this
species.
It
is
likely
that
the
harsh
condi,ons
of
the
site
forced
these
trees
to
adapt
by
growing
shorter
and
without
much
spread
while
pulng
growth
energy
into
diameter
in
an
afempt
to
create
maximum
structural
integrity.
I
feel
that
the
mi,ga,on
value
of
these
trees
should
be
reduced
considerably
once
reviewed
by
the
City
of
Aspen
forestry
department.
Depending
on
the
ul,mate
mi,ga,on
values
assigned
by
the
city,
further
inves,ga,on
of
these
trees
may
be
warranted
to
show
extent
of
decay
in
each
of
these
trees.
Tree
#61-‐
-‐39
inch
DBH-‐
Narrowleaf
cofonwood-‐
Tree
number
61
is
the
largest
of
the
trees
in
this
group
but
has
a
large
co-‐dominant
stem
and
other
notable
defects
within
the
canopy.
The
tree
has
a
very
large
diameter
in
comparison
to
the
crown
density
and
the
mi,ga,on
value
of
nearly
$50,000.00
seems
would
be
considered
in
my
opinion
extremely
high
considering
the
trees
condi,on
and
contribu,on
to
the
site
and
community.
Trees
#62
Narrowleaf
cofonwood-‐
29
inch
DBH-‐
This
tree
is
in
the
worst
condi,on
of
the
group
of
3
as
it
has
mul,ple
significant
decay
pockets
notable
from
the
ground
within
the
canopy
and
large
por,ons
of
deadwood.
I
have
included
photos
of
some
of
these
decay
pockets
within
this
document.
I
would
an,cipate
a
reduc,on
or
elimina,on
of
mi,ga,on
value
associated
with
this
tree
upon
review
by
the
City
of
Aspen
forestry
department.
I
feel
that
this
tree
is
hazardous
in
its
current
state
and
removal
would
be
recommended
regardless
of
the
site
development.
Tree
#63-‐
Narrowleaf
cofonwood-‐
37
inch
DBH-‐While
this
tree
is
displaying
moderately
good
vigor
mul,ple
pockets
of
decay
and
past
branch
failures
are
notable
from
the
ground.
This
tree
would
also
be
likely
to
have
a
reduced
mi,ga,on
value
assigned
upon
review
by
City
Forestry.
Trees
#64-‐65
-‐
Gambel
Oak
(Quercus
gambelii)
-‐4
inch
DBH
mul,
stemmed-‐An
area
was
noted
on
the
site
map
that
was
denoted
as
“shrubs
to
be
removed”,
it
was
assumed
that
this
area
did
not
include
any
trees
above
mi,ga,on
size.
While
most
of
the
plant
material
in
the
group
consisted
of
less
than
6
inch
diameter
Rocky
Mountain
Maple
stems,
closer
inspec,on
of
the
grouping
revealed
some
gambel
oak
stems
above
the
3
inch
diameter
size
which
would
trigger
mi,ga,on
according
to
the
city
code.
These
stems
were
in
good
condi,on
and
were
growing
in
a
very
dense
na,ve
environment.
Tree
#66-‐
Colorado
Spruce(Picea
pungens
)-‐
8
inch
DBH.
This
is
growing
along
the
edge
of
the
ski
slope
near
the
Mountain
Queen
Condominium
complex.
This
tree
is
showing
signs
of
poor
vigor
and
stress
and
close
inspec,on
revealed
a
piece
of
string
embedded
within
the
main
stem
approximately
10
feet
up
from
the
base.
This
will
cause
mortality
and/or
structural
failure
of
the
tree
ul,mately.
Due
to
this
condi,on,
I
feel
that
it
is
likely
that
the
mi,ga,on
value
would
be
removed
for
this
tree
upon
review.
Tree
#67-‐
Colorado
Spruce-‐
10
inch
DBH-‐
This
Spruce
tree,
just
below
tree
#66
is
in
fair
condi,on
and
is
showing
signs
of
low
vigor
likely
related
to
soil
compac,on
and
other
stressful
site
condi,ons.
This
tree
may
be
considered
for
a
reduced
mi,ga,on
value
due
to
vigor
related
factors.
Tree
#68-‐
Cofonwood-‐12
inch
DBH-‐
This
tree
is
showing
moderately
good
vigor
but
has
very
poor
structure
as
it
has
a
weak
branch
union
and
co-‐dominant
tops.
It
is
possible
that
this
tree
would
receive
a
reduc,on
in
mi,ga,on
value
due
to
this
structure.
Tree
#69
-‐Colorado
Spruce
12
inch
diameter-‐
This
tree
is
also
in
fair
condi,on
with
very
poor
structure.
The
misshapen
top
of
this
tree
would
make
it
highly
prone
to
snow
load
damage
in
this
loca,on
over
,me.
I
feel
that
this
tree
would
likely
have
a
reduced
mi,ga,on
value
assigned
as
a
result.
Trees
#70-‐78-‐
12,13,9,12,8,8,9,11,10
inches
DBH-‐
This
grouping
of
spruce
trees
are
planted
very
close
together
along
the
east
border
of
the
property
and
the
pool
area
of
the
Caribou
Condominiums.
Most
of
these
trees
are
in
good
condi,on
but
two
of
the
interior
trees
have
been
shaded
out
by
the
trees
nearby
and
are
performing
poorly.
Upon
inspec,on
of
the
grouping,
I
would
recommend
that
trees
number
72,
9
inch
DBH,
and
number
75,
8
inch
DBH,
be
removed
regardless
of
the
need
for
construc,on
ac,vity.
I
would
therefore
expect
that
a
reduc,on
or
elimina,on
of
mi,ga,on
value
could
be
considered
by
the
City
Forestry
when
assigning
mi,ga,on
values
to
these
two
trees.
Conclusion
In
this
instance
it
is
clear
due
to
the
extent
of
development
occurring
on
the
site
that
all
of
the
trees
will
require
removal
in
order
to
complete
the
proposed
plans.
Many
of
the
trees
are
in
rela,vely
poor
condi,on
and
I
feel
that
it
is
likely
that
a
reduc,on
in
the
maximum
mi,ga,on
value
could
be
given
once
the
trees
are
reviewed
by
the
City
of
Aspen
Forestry
Department.
While
current
plans
show
a
total
of
37
new
trees
being
installed
to
replace
the
18
being
removed,
the
large
diameter
of
many
of
the
trees
makes
mi,ga,on
values
very
high
when
calculated
at
the
maximum
possible
amounts.
Due
to
condi,on,
placement
,
contribu,on
to
the
site
and
other
factors
I
do
feel
that
it
would
be
reasonable
to
see
some
reduc,on
in
maximum
mi,ga,on
values
for
trees
on
this
project
Map of Site
Tree
60
Trees
61-‐63
Trees
64-‐65 Trees
66-‐67
Tree
68
Tree
69
Trees
70-‐78
Tree Inventory Spreadsheet
Lift%1%A/%Gorsuch%Haus
Tree%Inventory
Condition%Scale
1<Excellent
2<Good
3<Fair
4<Poor
5<Dead
Maximum%mitigation%values%
based%on%City%of%Aspen%Formula
Tree$#Species D.B.H.Condition Comments $Mitigation$
60 Fir 13 2 5,439.27$%%%%%%
61 Cottonwood 39 3 Co<dominent,%
Decay%in%crown 48,953.39$%%%%
62 Cottonwood 29 4 Severe%decay%in%
crown 27,067.59$%%%%
63 Cottonwood 37 3 Some%dieback,%
Decay%in%crown 44,061.27$%%%%
64 Gambel%Oak 4,4 2 1,029.92$%%%%%%
65 Gambel%Oak 4,4 2 1,029.92$%%%%%%
66 Spruce 8 4
Very%poor%
structure,%signs%
of%stress,%
embedded%rope%
in%main%stem
2,059.84$%%%%%%
67 Spruce 10 3 Compaction,%thin%
canopy 3,218.50$%%%%%%
68 Cottonwood 12 2 Vvery%Poor%
structure%4,634.64$%%%%%%
69 Spruce 12 3 Poor%structure 4,634.64$%%%%%%
70 Spruce 14 2 6,308.26$%%%%%%
71 Spruce 16 2 8,239.36$%%%%%%
72 Spruce 10 3 Overcrowded,%
shaded%out 3,218.50$%%%%%%
73 Spruce 12 2 4,634.64$%%%%%%
74 Spruce 11 2 3,894.39$%%%%%%
75 Spruce 10 3 Overcrowded,%
shaded%out 3,218.50$%%%%%%
76 Spruce 12 2 4,634.64$%%%%%%
77 Spruce 14 2 6,308.26$%%%%%%
78 Spruce 15 2 7,241.63$%%%%%%
274 Total%Maximum%
Mitigatin%Value 189,827.13$%
Photos
Photo
showing
trees
61-‐63
growing
next
to
liX
line.
Note
visible
deadwood,
decay
pockets
and
diminished
crown
density
for
trees
of
such
large
diameter..
Tree
number
61-‐
Note
excessive
decay
pockets
in
crown
Tree
number
63
showing
significant
decay
in
crown.
Tree
number
69
showing
poor
shape
and
structure