Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Appendix D - Natural Resources
Appendix D Natural Resources Appendix D-1 EAF Mapper & IPaC Reports EAF Mapper Summary Report Monday, January 30, 2017 1:20 PM Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental assessment form (EAF). Not all questions asked in the EAF are answered by the EAF Mapper. Additional information on any EAF question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to DEC, you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order to obtain data not provided by the Mapper. Digital data is not a substitute for agency determinations. B.i.i [Coastal or Waterfront Area]No B.i.ii [Local Waterfront Revitalization Area]No C.2.b. [Special Planning District]Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. E.1.h [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Potential Contamination History] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Listed] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Environmental Site Remediation Database] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. E.1.h.iii [Within 2,000' of DEC Remediation Site] Yes E.1.h.iii [Within 2,000' of DEC Remediation Site - DEC ID] 360033 E.2.g [Unique Geologic Features]No E.2.h.i [Surface Water Features]No E.2.h.ii [Surface Water Features]No E.2.h.iii [Surface Water Features]No E.2.h.v [Impaired Water Bodies]No E.2.i. [Floodway]No E.2.j. [100 Year Floodplain]No E.2.k. [500 Year Floodplain]No E.2.l. [Aquifers]No E.2.n. [Natural Communities]No E.2.o. [Endangered or Threatened Species]No 1Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report E.2.p. [Rare Plants or Animals]No E.3.a. [Agricultural District]No E.3.c. [National Natural Landmark]No E.3.d [Critical Environmental Area]No E.3.e. [National Register of Historic Places]Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. E.3.f. [Archeological Sites]No E.3.i. [Designated River Corridor]No 2Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report 9/22/2017 IPaC: Explore Location https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/DMF6QVKVTZBSJHUGODSOO53364/resources 1/4 IPaC resource list This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly a 9/22/2017 IPaC: Explore Location https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/DMF6QVKVTZBSJHUGODSOO53364/resources 2/4 Endangered species This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts. The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of in 9/22/2017 IPaC: Explore Location https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/DMF6QVKVTZBSJHUGODSOO53364/resources 3/4 What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my speci 9/22/2017 IPaC: Explore Location https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/DMF6QVKVTZBSJHUGODSOO53364/resources 4/4 waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuber Appendix D-2 Wetland Delineation Report Environmental, Planning, and Engineering Consultants 34 South Broadway Suite 401 White Plains, NY 10601 tel: 914 949-7336 fax: 914 949-7559 www.akrf.com New York City ● Hudson Valley Region ● Long Island ● Baltimore / Washington Area ● New Jersey ● Philadelphia Memorandum To: Peter Duncan, 900 King Street Owner LLC From: Sarah Bray, AKRF, Inc. Date: September 21, 2017 Re: 900 King St.- Rye Brook, NY- Wetland Delineation Report- V2 cc: Peter Feroe INTRODUCTION At your direction, AKRF, Inc. investigated the approximately 17.77 acre parcel at 900 King Street for the presence of wetlands and waterbodies. The investigation was performed in furtherance of the proposed redevelopment of the Site, which would include the demolition of the existing approximately 200,000 square foot office building, and the development of an integrated age-restricted residential community that includes approximately 24 townhouses, approximately 160 units of independent living, and approximately 85 units of assisted living. This memo describes AKRF’s investigation, including the methodology that was followed and the results of the investigation. METHODOLOGY Prior to the on-Site wetlands investigation, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps were reviewed by AKRF to determine locations of state-mapped or NWI-mapped wetlands on and in the vicinity of the Project Site. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils maps were also reviewed to determine soil types within the Project Site, particularly with respect to soil series identified as hydric soils. After review of this material, as well as aerial photographs of the Project Site, an AKRF wetland scientist conducted a wetland delineation of the Site using the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Village of Rye Brook wetland delineation methodology on April 28, 2017, May 12, 2017, May 22-24, 2017, and September 12, 2017.1 The methodology used to identify wetlands, including the three USACE wetland indicators (i.e., hydrology, soils, and hydrophytic 1 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. “Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,” Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2011. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region (version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, C.V. Noble, and J.F. Berkowitz. ERDC/EL TR-12-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.; Village of Rye Brook Code – Chapter 245: Wetlands and Watercourses. P. Duncan 2 September 21, 2017 vegetation), is described below. In accordance with that methodology, photographs were taken of observed wetland areas. HYDROLOGY AND SOILS The hydrology of the Site was characterized using aerial photographs, site observations, a sharp-shooter spade, and an auger to determine soil saturation and/or a high water table. Soils were characterized with the use of a spade and an auger and a Munsell Soil Color Chart. During the wetlands investigation, both hydrology and soil observations were made during periods of both wet and dry weather. VEGETATION The USACE Northcentral and Northeast 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List was used to determine the wetland/upland status of the vegetation identified on the Project Site. Percent cover was documented in the tree, vine, shrub, and herbaceous strata. A 30-foot (ft) radius plot was established to document percent cover of the tree and vine strata. Within this 30-ft plot, a 15-ft radius plot was established for the measurement of shrubs and saplings. For species in the herbaceous stratum, five 3.28-ft by 3.28-ft square plots were sampled within the 30-ft tree and vine plot and averaged together. EXISTING CONDITIONS MAPPING National Wetlands Inventory-Mapped Wetlands There are no NWI-mapped wetlands within the 900 King St. Site (see Figure 1). The closest mapped resource is the Byram River, approximately 0.5 miles away. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation-Mapped Wetlands There are no NYSDEC-mapped freshwater wetlands or streams within the 900 King St. Site (see Figure 2). The closest NYSDEC-mapped resource is a class C stream, mapped approximately 0.32 miles away. Natural Resources Conservation Service -Mapped Soils Within the 900 King Site, soils are mapped as “ChB,- Charlton fine sandy sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes; PnB- Paxton fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes; PnC- Paxton fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes; Uf- Urban land; UhB- Urban land-Charlton complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes; UhC- Urban land- Charlton complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes; WdB- Woodbridge loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes. All soils mapped for the Site are described as moderately well drained to well drained, with the large majority made up of soils typical to largely disturbed Urban land. There are not any hydric soils mapped on the Project Site. On-Site soils are shown in Figure 3. ONSITE DELINEATION Wetland investigations and delineations were conducted on April 28, 2017, May 12, 2017, May 22-24, 2017, and September 12, 2017. Five locations were identified that meet the three parameter requirement for the presence of wetlands (hydric soil, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology) of the US Army Corps of Engineers Methodology. The soils, hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation of the wetlands were documented by sampling points, and are described below. Wetland locations are included in Figure 4. Photos of each delineated area are included in Figure 5. Wetland A and Stream A Wetland A, flagged A1 to A35, is located at the western side of the Site. The central portion of the woodland area at the western side of the Site contains saturated soils, due to its lower position in the landscape as well as from the fact that it is surrounded by development. Wetland A is a forested wetland that begins upslope in the northern portion of the Site at a low spot, dominated by American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). The wetland flows south with the descending contours through the woodland, opens out to an herbaceous section dominated by jewelweed P. Duncan 3 September 21, 2017 (Impatiens capensis) and sedges (Carex spp.), before it is channelized into a narrow stream, “Stream A,” which runs through lawn and is eventually conveyed to a culvert that crosses Arbor Drive. Primary hydrology indicators met include “A1 Surface Water” up to ½ in in depth, “A2 High Water Table”, located at 6 inches, “A3 Saturation” to the surface (0in), and “B3 Drift Deposits”; secondary indicators include “B16 Moss Trim Lines” and “D2 Geomorphic Position”. Soils of this wetland meet the criteria of “A3 Depleted Matrix” (See Data Form Wetland A-1). Wetland B Wetland B was flagged B1 to B7 and is located primarily off-Site to the north at the northwestern portion of the site. Wetland B is a common reed (Phragmites australis) dominated herbaceous wetland depression with a woodland fringe, located north of the existing on-Site parking lot. It is hydrologically supplied by runoff from a culvert passing under the Hutchinson River Parkway, which then outlets into a rock-lined depression to the north of the Project Site, within the right-of-way for the Hutchinson River Parkway. A rock dam is situated at the edge of the emergent/depressional area; however wetland soils, vegetation, and hydrology are evident beyond (south) of this barrier within the wooded area, which is dominated by silver maple (Acer saccharinum) and poison ivy. Thus the delineated wetland area includes both emergent and wooded areas. Primary hydrology indicators met include “A2 High Water Table,” located at 5in, “A3 Saturation” to the surface (0in), and “B9 Water Stained Leaves”. Secondary hydrology indicator D2 “Geomorphic position” is also met. Soils meet the criteria of “A3 Depleted Matrix” (See Data Form Wetland B-1). Wetland C Wetland C was flagged C1 to C7 and is located at the northern portion of the Site. Wetland C is a small forested (PFO) wetland situated to the north of the parking lot, east of Wetland B, in a flat area dominated by silver maple and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), poison ivy, and bishop’s goutweed (Aegopodium podagraria). The northern portion of Wetland C is located within the right-of-way of the Hutchinson River Parkway. Much of the forest floor is unvegetated and contains water-stained leaves, meeting primary hydrology indicators “B9 Water-Stained Leaves” and “B8- Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface”. Other primary hydrology indicators met include “B3 Drift Deposits” and the secondary hydrology indicator of “D2 Geomorphic Position,” since the wetland is located at the toe of a slope. Run-off from the Hutchinson Parkway is likely the source of hydrology. Soils of this wetland meet the criteria of “A11 Depleted Below Dark Surface.” (See Data Form Wetland C-1) Wetland D and Stream S Wetland D was flagged D1 to D16 and is located at the eastern side of the Site. Likely created as a stormwater basin, this emergent wetland, dominated by common reed, is located to the east of the parking lot. Soils of this wetland meet the criteria of “A11 Depleted Below Dark Surface”. The primary hydrology indicators are “A1 Surface Water”, which was present up to a depth of 1 inch, “A3 Saturation”, which occurs at a depth of 5 inches, “C3 Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots”, and secondary hydrology indicator of “D2 Geomorphic Position,” since the elevation of the wetland was in a depression compared to the surrounding area (see Data Form Wetland D-1). Two culvert inlets on the north side of the wetland convey water from off-Site (from the east) and on-Site from the parking lot. Three culvert outlets on the south side, including an overflow structure, discharge surface water from this wetland to “Stream S” delineated to the south, which flows through a short corridor dominated by American basswood (Tilia Americana) and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Wetland E Wetland E was flagged E1 to E6 and is located primarily off-Site to the northeast of the Project Site. Wetland E is a small, forested wetland in an area that demonstrates a high level of disturbance and fill. P. Duncan 4 September 21, 2017 Dominant vegetation in the canopy layer includes green ash and silver maple; tatarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica) and European privet (Ligustrum vulgare) dominate the shrub layer; and, poison ivy dominates the herbaceous layer. Honeysuckle, though not listed as wetland species is noted in the Northcentral and Northeast 2014 Regional Wetland Plant List as a non-native, invasive species that can occur in wetlands. The primary hydrology indicator identified is “C3 Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots”; secondary hydrology indicators are “B6 Surface Soil Cracks”, “B10 Drainage patterns”, and “D2 Geomorphic Position,” (see Data Form Wetland E). A drainage pipe that leads to an adjacent residential property appears to supply some of the hydrology. Upland The upland areas on-Site include herbaceous areas, forested areas, and paved areas. Herbaceous areas can be described as large areas of mowed lawn with ornamental trees. Forested areas consist of woodlands ranging from deciduous hardwood oak-maple located in the southeast corner of the property, to American basswood dominated forest located north of the parking lot. The vegetation, soils, and hydrology of these areas do not meet the USACE criteria for a wetland. For these reasons, these areas were documented as upland (see Data Forms A-2, B-2, C-2, and D-2). SUMMARY As described above, five freshwater wetlands were identified on and adjacent to the Project Site using the USACE and Village of Rye Brook wetland delineation methodology. The Village of Rye Brook regulates each of the on-Site wetlands and watercourses flagged by AKRF, subject to confirmation by the Village, and their associated 100-foot buffer, pursuant to Chapter 245, Wetlands and Watercourses, of the Village Code. Figures: 1. NWI Wetlands 2. NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands 3. USDA Mapped Soils 4. Wetland Delineation Sketch 5. Representative Site Photographs Attachments: USACE Wetland Determination Forms 900 King St. Rye Brook, NY U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team,wetlands_team@fws.gov Wetlands Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine June 16, 2017 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:7,921 This page was produced by the NWI mapperNational Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Environmental Resource Mapper + – 0 300 600 Soil Map—Westchester County, New York (900 King St., Rye Brook, NY) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/26/2017 Page 1 of 3 45 4 3 0 3 0 45 4 3 1 0 0 45 4 3 1 7 0 45 4 3 2 4 0 45 4 3 3 1 0 45 4 3 3 8 0 45 4 3 4 5 0 45 4 3 5 2 0 45 4 3 5 9 0 45 4 3 0 3 0 45 4 3 1 0 0 45 4 3 1 7 0 45 4 3 2 4 0 45 4 3 3 1 0 45 4 3 3 8 0 45 4 3 4 5 0 45 4 3 5 2 0 45 4 3 5 9 0 611120 611190 611260 611330 611400 611470 611540 611120 611190 611260 611330 611400 611470 611540 41° 2' 10'' N 73 ° 4 0 ' 4 2 ' ' W 41° 2' 10'' N 73 ° 4 0 ' 2 1 ' ' W 41° 1' 50'' N 73 ° 4 0 ' 4 2 ' ' W 41° 1' 50'' N 73 ° 4 0 ' 2 1 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 18N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 45 90 180 270 Meters Map Scale: 1:3,040 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. ARCHITECT: APPLICANT/OWNER: Drawing No:Project No:Date:Scale:Drawn: A p p r o v e d : ANY ALTERATION OF PLANS,SPECIFICATIONS, PLATS AND REPORTS BEARING THE SEAL OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW,EXCEPT AS PROVIDED FOR BY SECTION 7209, SUBSECTION 2.No. Revision DateBy C O P Y R I G H T © 2 0 1 7 b y J M C A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d . N o p a r t o f t h i s d o c u m e n t m a y b e r e p r o d u c e d , s t o r e d i n a r e t r i e v a l s y s t e m , o r t r a n s m i t t e d i n a n y f o r m o r b y m e a n s , e l e c t r o n i c , m e c h a n i c a l , p h o t o c o p y i n g , r e c o r d i n g o r o t h e r w i s e , w i t h o u t t h e p r i o r w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f J M C P L A N N I N G , E N G I N E E R I N G , L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E & L A N D S U R V E Y I N G , P L L C | J M C S I T E D E V E L O P M E N T CONSULTANTS, LLC | JOHN MEYER CONSULTING, INC. (JMC). Any modifications or alterations to this document without the written permission of JMC shall render them invalid and unusable. Photographs Figure 5 9.20.17 900 KING 2 Wetland A; facing north 1 Wetland A; facing south Photographs Figure 5 9.20.17 900 KING 4 3 Wetland B; facing north Wetland A and associated stream; facing southeast Photographs Figure 5 9.20.17 900 KING 6 Wetland B- woodland fringe; facing south 5 Wetland C; facing southwest Photographs Figure 5 9.20.17 900 KING Wetland D, culverts; facing east Wetland D; facing northwest 8 7 Photographs Figure 5 9.20.17 900 KING 9Stream, south of Wetland D; facing southeast Photographs Figure 5 9.20.17 900 KING Wetland E; facing south Wetland E; Mud Cracks SOIL Sampling Point: A -1AProfile o.,.scriptlon: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix (inches} Color (moist} ; .. � ) ) "' Ii'_, "l /1 1,. lo ,O'ff!-3/1 {() _, ,l 1r�12 1L, \1--w � loo'!" Redox Features Color (moist) � _IYQL Loc2 Texture Remarks ci u,""' _Jr .. ('lw, 51,). "r,IL. ---I ------------- ---C'_.. ,� (lr.t) __________ _ 1T : C=Concentralion, D=De lelion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Locatlon: PL=Pore linln , M=Matrix. Hydric Soll Indicators: _ Histosol (A1) _ Hislic Epipedon (A2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Stratified Layers (A5) _ Df.!pleted Below Dark Surface (A 11 ) _ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (L�t{ R, MLRA1498) _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 1498) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ---'-l}epleted Matrix (F3) _.YRedox Dark Surface (F6) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _ Redox Depressions (F8) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 1498) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls3: _ 2 cm Muck (A10)(LRR K, L, MLRA 1498) _ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) , ----+ 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (SJ) (LRR K, L, R) _ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L, M) _ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L) ._ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L) _ Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 1498) _ Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 1498) _ Red Parent Material (F21) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.Restrictive Layer (If observed): Type: __________ _ Depth (inches): _______ _ Hydric Soll Present? Yes / No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region -Version 2.0 Appendix D-3 Vegetation Observed On-Site Ve g e t a t i o n O b s e r v e d o n t h e 9 0 0 K i n g S t r e e t S i t e Co m m o n N a m e S c i e n t i f i c N a m e L a y e r Co m m o n r e e d Ph r a g m i t e d a u s t r a l i s He r b Bi s h o p s g o u t w e e d Ae g o p o d i u m p o d a g r a r i a He r b Je w e l w e e d Im p a t i e n s c a p e n s i s He r b Po i s o n i v y To x i c o d e n d r o n r a d i c a n s Vi n e Gr e e n a s h Fr a x i n u s p e n n s y l v a n i c a Tr e e Bl a c k a s h Fr a x i n u s n i g r a Tr e e Pu m p k i n a s h Fr a x i n u s p r o f u n d a Tr e e Am e r i c a n s y c a m o r e Pl a t a n u s o c c i d e n t a l i s Tr e e Be a k r u s h Rh y n c h o s p o r a s p . He r b Cu r l y d o c Ru m e x c r i s p i s He r b Ju m p s e e d Pe r s i c a r i a v i r g i n i a n a He r b Go l d e n r o d So l i d a g o s p . He r b Mo n k e y f l o w e r Mi m u l u s s p . He r b mu l t i f l o r a r o s e Ro s a m u l t i f l o r a Sh r u b se n s i t i v e f e r n On o c l e a s e n s i b i l i s He r b Ha w t h o r n Cr a t e g u s s p . Tr e e No r w a y m a p l e Ac e r p l a n t a n o i d e s Tr e e Ap p l e Ma l u s s p . Tr e e Co m m o n p r i v i t Li g u s t r u m v u l g a r e Sh r u b No r t h e r n c a t a l p a Ca t a l p a s p e c i o s a Tr e e Ga r l i c m u s t a r d Al l i a r i a p e t i o l a t a He r b Ja p a n e s e h o n e y s u c k l e Lo n i c e r a j a p o n i c a Sh r u b Or i e n t a l b i t t e r s w e e t Ce l a s t r u s o r b i c u l a t u s Vi n e Am e r i c a n b a s s w o o d Ti l i a a m e r i c a n a Tr e e Tu l i p t r e e Li r i o d e n d r o n t u l i p i f e r a Tr e e Mu g w o r t Ar t e m e s i a v u l g a r i s He r b Vi r g i n i a c r e e p e r Pa r t h e n o s i s u s q u i n q u e f o l i a Vi n e Wh i t e o a k Qu e r c u s a l b a Tr e e Co m m o n N a m e S c i e n t i f i c N a m e L a y e r pu r p l e l o o s e t r i f e Ly t h r u m a l a t u m Herb Am e r i c a n e l m Ul m u s a m e r i c a n a Tree Ca n a d a t h i s t l e Ci r s i u m a r v e n s e Herb Po r c e l a i n b e r r y Am p e l o p s o s br e v i p e d u n c u l a t a Vine Aw l f r u i t s e d g e Ca r e x s t i p a t a Herb Wh i t e p i n e Pi n u s s t r o b u s Tree Wi l d g a r l i c Al l i u m a s c a l o n i c u m Herb Ro u g h b e d s t r a w Ga l i u m a s p r e l l u m Herb So f t r u s h Ju n c u s e f f u s u s Herb Gr o u n d i v y Gl e c h o m a h e d e r a c e a Herb Si l k y d o g w o o d Co r n u s a m m o m u m Shrub Pu s s y w i l l o w Sa l i x d i s c o l o r Shrub Gl o s s y b u c k t h o r n Fr a n g u l a a l n u s Shrub Wh i t e m u l b e r r y Mo r u s a l b a Tree Sh a g b a r k h i c k o r y Ca r y a o v a t a Tree Wi n g e d e u n y m o u s Eu n y m u s a l a t u s Shrub Tr o u t l i l y Er y t h r o n i u m a m e r i c a n u m Herb En g l i s h Y e w Ta x u s b a c c a a Shrub Ho r s e c h e s t n u t Ae s c l e p i a h i p p o c a s t a n u m Tree No r w a y s p r u c e Pi c e a a b i e s Tree Cu c k o o f l o w e r Ca r d a m i n e p r a t e n s i s Herb Pe n s y l v a n i a s e d g e Ca r e x p e n s y l a n i c a Herb Ho r s e t a i l r u s h Eq u i s e t u m a r v e n s e Herb Am e r i c a n b e e c h Fa g u s g r a n i f o l i a Tree Rh o d o d e n d r o n Rh o d o d e n d r o n m a x i m u m Shrub Si l v e r m a p l e Ac e r s a c c h a r i n u m Appendix D-4 Tree Survey with Condition 900 King Street Tree Survey with Condition Key Tree type Key Tree type Key Tree type AP Apple EM Elm PI Pine AS Ash FR Fir PLUM Plum BE Beech GINK Ginkgo PR Pear BR Birch HI Hickory SR Spruce CA Catalpa LI Linden SY Sycamore CD Cedar LO Locust TOH Tree of Heaven CH Cherry MA Maple TU Tulip CN Conifer MU Mulberry WT Walnut CW Cottonwood OK Oak WI Willow DE Deciduous YE Yew Tree # Species DBH Removal Form Health Structure Total Notes Non‐native/invasive 1YE 8 23 5roots exposed, leaning 2 YE 8 TR 3 2 5 dieback, leaning 3OK24 24 6red oak, dieback, vines 4CH 8 32 5black cherry, leaning, vines 5CH 6 33 6slight lean, epicormic sprouting 6OK20 43 7red oak 7 TOH 22 4 3 7 double leader X 8 AP 8 MU 1 0 1 crab apple, suckering 9HI16 45 9some vines 10 CH 10 2 3 5 leaning, vines, epicormic sprouting 11 YE 8 MU 2 2 4 cankers, epicormic sprouting, vines, leaning 12 YE 16 2 3 5 vines, dieback 13 SR 16 4 4 8 dieback, double leader 14 MA 12 0 15 MA 22 3 3 6 Silver maple ,lots of vines, broken scaffold branches, mature tree 16 MA 5 0 Not large enough 17 SR 18 4 4 8 double leader, dieback 18 SR 12 4 4 8 dieback, multiple leaders 19 SR 18 4 3 7 dieback, double leader, vine 20 EM 6 3 3 6 elm, leaning, vines, epicormic sprouting 21 SR 14 X 2 3 5 vines, dieback 22 SR 14 2 3 5 dieback, double leader 23 SR 8 2 3 5 dieback, asymetric growth 24 SR 22 3 4 7 dieback, huge trunk wound, asymmetric 25 SR 14 3 4 7 dieback 26 SR 14 3 3 6 dieback, canker 27 SR 24 X 4 3 7 asymetrical, dieback, slight lean 28 SR 14 4 3 7 dieback, double leader 29 SR 16 4 3 7 asymetric, dieback 30 SR 10 2 2 4 nearly dead, dieback 31 SR 22 X 4 4 8 asymetrical, dieback 32 SR 14 3 4 7 dieback 33 SR 16 4 4 8 dieback, asymetric 34 SR 16 4 4 8 dieback, asymetric 35 SR 12 X 4 4 8 dieback, asymetric 36 SR 10 3 4 7 dieback 37 SR 20 X 4 4 8 asymetric, dieback 38 SR 14 3 4 7 dieback 39 SR 18 X 4 4 8 dieback 40 LI 20 X 5 5 10 Little Leaf Linden 41 CH 20 X TR 5 4 9 very mature 42 CH 20 X MU 5 4 9 very mature 43 MA 8 0 44 CA 6 TR 0 45 FR 32 0 46 DE 6 0 47 AP 8 TW 0 48 AP 8 TW 0 49 AP 6 0 50 AP 12 TW 0 51 CA 12 TW 0 Double (6", 10") 52 TU 16 0 53 EM 22 0 Page 1 of 16 900 King Street Tree Survey with Condition Key Tree type Key Tree type Key Tree type AP Apple EM Elm PI Pine AS Ash FR Fir PLUM Plum BE Beech GINK Ginkgo PR Pear BR Birch HI Hickory SR Spruce CA Catalpa LI Linden SY Sycamore CD Cedar LO Locust TOH Tree of Heaven CH Cherry MA Maple TU Tulip CN Conifer MU Mulberry WT Walnut CW Cottonwood OK Oak WI Willow DE Deciduous YE Yew Tree # Species DBH Removal Form Health Structure Total Notes Non‐native/invasive 54 CA 6 0 55 AP 8 TR 0 56 SR 6 0 57 AP 16 TR 0 Tripple 10",8", 10" 58 AS 12 0 59 PI 14 0 60 LO 10 0 61 MA 21 4 3 7 silver maple, epicormic sprouting, vines 62 MA 42 0 63 MA 10 X 4 4 8 norway maple, epicormic sprouting, leaning X 64 CH 10 X 2 1 3 large crack in trunk, broken limbs 65 AP 10 2 1 3 crab apple, epicormic sprouting, no structural branches 66 AP 12 TW 3 2 5 crab apple, epicormic sprouting, double (8", 10") 67 CH 16 4 3 7 black cherry, epicormic sprouting, dieback 68 MA 32 4 4 8 norway maple, leaning, splits, codominant lead X 69 CA 6 3 2 5 dieback, leaning 70 CA 10 3 3 6 dieback, leaning 71 CA 10 2 4 6 leaning, some epicormic sprouting and dieback 72 CA 10 3 4 7 some dieback 73 CA 8 2 3 5 wound on trunck, leaning, dieback 74 CA 12 2 3 5 lots of vine, leaning 75 CA 6 2 2 4 epicormic sprouting 76 CA 6 0 77 SY 12 0 78 YE 10 4 3 7 some dieback 79 MA 10 2 3 5 norway maple, leaning, asymetric, lots of vines X 80 YE 18 TW 4 3 7 dieback, vines, Twin (14", 12") 81 CH 18 4 3 7 black cherry, leaning, vines 82 SR 16 2 3 5 dieback, asymetric 83 AP 19 MU 2 3 5 crab apple, suckering, vines, dieback, multistem (10", 16") 84 SR 12 2 2 4 dieback, vine, leaning 85 AP 6 2 2 4 crab apple, leaning, dieback 86 PI 16 4 4 8 white pine, assymetric, vines, dieback 87 MA 46 MU 0 Multistem (28", 20", 30") 88 MA 8 0 89 MA 24 0 90 PI 8 3 3 6 white pine, assymetric, vines, dieback 91 MA 6 0 92 CA 26 0 93 MA 22 0 94 MA 30 5 3 8 norway maple, dead structural branches X 95 DE 10 3 1 4 Excessive Vine 96 PI 18 4 3 7 white pine, codominant leader, vines, dieback 97 PI 12 0 98 PI 19 TW 0 multi (10", 16") 99 PI 12 0 100 CN 12 MU 0 101 CN 25 MU 0 Multi (8", 8", 22") 102 CN 20 0 103 CN 23 MU 0 Multi (6, 22") 104 CN 28 0 Page 2 of 16 900 King Street Tree Survey with Condition Key Tree type Key Tree type Key Tree type AP Apple EM Elm PI Pine AS Ash FR Fir PLUM Plum BE Beech GINK Ginkgo PR Pear BR Birch HI Hickory SR Spruce CA Catalpa LI Linden SY Sycamore CD Cedar LO Locust TOH Tree of Heaven CH Cherry MA Maple TU Tulip CN Conifer MU Mulberry WT Walnut CW Cottonwood OK Oak WI Willow DE Deciduous YE Yew Tree # Species DBH Removal Form Health Structure Total Notes Non‐native/invasive 105 CN 16 0 106 OK 22 3 2 5 Excessive vines 107 CH 6 0 108 DE 6 2 1 3 Excessive vines 109 CA 10 3 4 7 bending form, vines, some dieback 110 MA 16 TW 0 111 DE 6 TR 0 112 MA 24 5 4 9 norway maple, codominent leaders, extra soil X 113 MA 6 2 3 5 norway maple, vines, extra soil X 114 MA 12 3 2 5 norway maple, trunk rot, extra soil X 115 MA 12 3 3 6 norway maple, mulistem, epicormic sprouting, extra soil X 116 MA 10 3 4 7 norway maple, assymmetric, leaning, extra soil X 117 MA 12 3 4 7 norway maple, assymmetric, extra soil X 118 MA 12 0 norway maple, assymmetric, vines, exposed roots, root wounds, extra soil X 119 MA 18 X 3 3 6 norway maple, vines, some dieback, little lean X 120 CH 16 2 3 5 black cherry, dieback, broken structural branches, vines 121 CH 12 3 3 6 black cherry, vines, leaning, dieback 122 CN 18 4 4 8 123 MA 18 3 4 7 norway maple, fungus, rot spots X 124 CA 6 0 125 PI 32 TW 0 126 DE 22 MU 3 2 5 multistem (16, 12, 8), dieback, epicormic sprouting 127 MA 6 0 128 AP 6 MU 0 129 AP 16 MU 0 12, 10 130 AP 12 MU 0 8, 6 131 AP 8 MU 0 6, 6" 132 DE 14 0 133 CA 36 0 134 SY 14 0 135 AP 12 X MU 0 6", 10" 136 CH 18 X TR 5 3 8 weeping cherry, cankers 137 CH 16 X MU 4 4 8 juvenile squirrels, suckering 138 AP 8 X 2 2 4 crab apple, suckering, dieback 139 SR 12 3 3 6 leaning, dieback 140 SR 14 X 4 4 8 dieback 141 SR 10 X 4 4 8 dieback 142 AP 10 X TR 4 3 7 crab apple, epicormic sprouting, multi stem 143 SR 18 X 4 3 7 dieback 144 SR 6 1 1 2 double leaders nearly dead 145 SR 14 4 5 9 asymetric, dieback 146 CH 18 5 4 9 suckering 147 SR 10 1 2 3 leaning, dieback 148 SR 22 X 4 3 7 sap weeping, dieback, asymetric 149 AP 6 X TR 2 4 6 crab apple, suckering, epicormic sprouting 150 CH 12 5 3 8 cavity 151 CH 16 X 4 5 9 some suckering, mechanical damage 152 AP 6 X 4 3 7 crab apple, dieback, crossing branches 153 AP 6 X 4 3 7 dieback, crossing branches, twisted trunk 154 AP 6 X 4 2 6 crab apple, crossing branches, dieback Page 3 of 16 900 King Street Tree Survey with Condition Key Tree type Key Tree type Key Tree type AP Apple EM Elm PI Pine AS Ash FR Fir PLUM Plum BE Beech GINK Ginkgo PR Pear BR Birch HI Hickory SR Spruce CA Catalpa LI Linden SY Sycamore CD Cedar LO Locust TOH Tree of Heaven CH Cherry MA Maple TU Tulip CN Conifer MU Mulberry WT Walnut CW Cottonwood OK Oak WI Willow DE Deciduous YE Yew Tree # Species DBH Removal Form Health Structure Total Notes Non‐native/invasive 155 PN 20 X TR 4 4 8 umbrella pine, vines 156 AP 10 0 157 AP 6 0 158 AP 10 0 159 AP 6 0 160 AP 10 MU 0 6", 8" 161 AP 6 0 162 AP 8 0 163 AP 8 0 164 AP 12 MU 0 10", 6" 165 AP 6 0 166 DE 24 0 167 DE 18 0 168 DE 18 0 169 MA 6 0 170 DE 24 0 171 DE 6 0 172 SY 16 0 173 SY 10 0 174 AS 12 0 175 AS 6 0 176 AP 6 0 177 AP 10 TW 0 178 OK 24 0 179 OK 14 0 180 LI 35 MU 3 5 8 American Basswood, vine (bittersweet) 26", 24" 181 CH 13 MU 0 6", 12" 182 CH 10 X 3 2 5 excessive vines, dieback 183 SR 19 X MU 2 2 4 excessive vines (poison ivy), 6", 18" 184 AP 10 2 1 3 crab apple, vines, learning, epicormic sprouting 185 LI 56 MU 4 5 9 American Basswood, multi stem (36", 24", 36"), some dead branches 186 CN 38 MU 0 vines, dieback 187 SY 18 0 188 CH 18 MU 0 mutistem ( 12", 14") 190 CN 12 TR 0 191 CN 33 MU 4 3 7 (6,10,16, 16, 10, 9.5, 10, 9, 6, 6) vines, dieback 194 SY 12 0 195 SY 8 0 196 SY 10 0 197 AP 6 0 198 DE 30 MU 0 18", 24" 199 CH 24 MU 0 16", 12", 14" 200 DE 26 0 201 CH 19 MU 0 16", 10" 203 DE 12 TW 0 205 MA 6 0 206 CH 14 0 207 OK 18 0 208 OK 10 0 210 DE 6 0 211 SY 8 0 212 SY 14 0 Page 4 of 16 900 King Street Tree Survey with Condition Key Tree type Key Tree type Key Tree type AP Apple EM Elm PI Pine AS Ash FR Fir PLUM Plum BE Beech GINK Ginkgo PR Pear BR Birch HI Hickory SR Spruce CA Catalpa LI Linden SY Sycamore CD Cedar LO Locust TOH Tree of Heaven CH Cherry MA Maple TU Tulip CN Conifer MU Mulberry WT Walnut CW Cottonwood OK Oak WI Willow DE Deciduous YE Yew Tree # Species DBH Removal Form Health Structure Total Notes Non‐native/invasive 213 SY 8 0 215 AS 12 0 217 MA 12 0 218 CN 36 3 2 5 excessive vines, dieback 223 MA 39 MU 3 2 5 vines, fungus multi: 24, 24, 14, 12,8 224 MA 6 0 225 DE 15 0 226 DE 22 0 227 DE 21 MU 0 18, 10" 228 DE 18 0 230 DE 36 0 231 DE 10 0 232 DE 30 MU 0 18", 18", 16" 233 DE 10 0 234 DE 16 0 235 DE 16 0 236 OK 6 0 238 CN 10 MU 0 239 OK 10 0 240 FR 28 0 241 DE 12 0 242 DE 16 0 243 CN 8 MU 0 244 DE 19 TW 0 16", 10" TW 246 DE 37 MU 0 24", 28" 247 MA 18 0 248 DE 10 0 249 DE 18 0 250 DE 8 0 251 DE 12 0 252 CH 10 0 253 DE 6 0 254 DE 14 0 255 DE 10 0 256 DE 6 0 257 OK 36 0 258 DE 12 0 259 OK 36 0 260 DE 13 MU 0 10", 8" 261 MA 6 2 3 5 norway maple, leaning X 262 LI 43 MU 4 4 8 American Basswood, multistem (36, 24"), growing on top of debris 263 LI 32 MU 4 5 9 American Basswood, multistem (18, 12, 24"), growing on top of debris 264 LI 22 4 5 9 American Basswood,little assymetric 265 LI 6 2 3 5 American Basswood, some dieback, leaning, multistem 266 MA 30 TW 2 1 3 leaning, vines, broken leaders TW 20", 22" 276 CW 20 X 4 4 8 vines, squirrel nest, asymetric, epicorming sprouting 277 LI 18 X 5 5 10 Little Leaf Linden 278 LI 16 X 5 5 10 Little Leaf Linden 279 LI 16 X 4 2 6 Little Leaf Linden, some vines, some epicormic sprouting, dieback Page 5 of 16 900 King Street Tree Survey with Condition Key Tree type Key Tree type Key Tree type AP Apple EM Elm PI Pine AS Ash FR Fir PLUM Plum BE Beech GINK Ginkgo PR Pear BR Birch HI Hickory SR Spruce CA Catalpa LI Linden SY Sycamore CD Cedar LO Locust TOH Tree of Heaven CH Cherry MA Maple TU Tulip CN Conifer MU Mulberry WT Walnut CW Cottonwood OK Oak WI Willow DE Deciduous YE Yew Tree # Species DBH Removal Form Health Structure Total Notes Non‐native/invasive 280 PI 6 3 5 8 dieback 281 EM 10 X 4 4 8 American Elm, vines, asymetric 282 PI 6 X 4 3 7 Asymetric, dieback 283 AS 6 X 3 4 7 Ash, leaning, dead small branches, asymetric 284 AS 6 X 3 3 6 vines 285 LI 12 X 4 5 9 Americna Bassood, little asymmetric 286 LI 6 X 4 4 8 American Basswood, little asymmetric 287 MU 8 X 3 3 6 Mulberry, some rot 288 MA 8 X 4 5 9 Silver Maple, leaning 289 LI 16 X 5 3 8 Little Leaf Linden, epicormic sprouting 290 OK 12 4 4 8 Red Oak, little asymmetric 291 CH 10 3 3 6 black cherry, leaning, some dieback 292 MA 10 TW 3 4 7 Norway Maple, double leader 8", 6", leaf spots X 293 PI 24 3 3 6 White Pine, dieback 294 OK 16 3 3 6 Red Oak, lots of vines, asymmetric 295 LI 6 4 4 8 Asymetric 296 OK 8 4 4 8 Asymetric 297 PI 6 3 4 7 White Pine 299 MA 6 2 2 4 Sugar Maple, epicormic sprouting, asymmetric 302 MA 6 3 3 6 Sugar Maple, asymetric, some dieback at top 305 MA 8 3 4 7 Asymmterical 306 MA 8 3 4 7 vines, asymetric, leaning 309 MU 16 MU 3 3 6 Mulberry, lots of epic sprouting, asymmetric, some rot (12", 10") 310 LI 6 2 4 6 root rot, multi stem, vines 314 OK 8 4 5 9 Pin Oak, some dead small branches 316 LI 13 MU 3 4 7 multistem 12", 6", some vines 320 MA 12 3 4 7 silver maple, asymetric, leaning, some epicormic sprouting 323 MA 10 4 5 9 Norway Maple X 325 MA 6 3 3 6 Norway Maple, leaning, epicormic sprouting X 326 LI 18 4 5 9 leaning 327 MA 12 3 4 7 Silver Maple, epicormic sprouting, narrow form 328 MA 15 MU 3 4 7 Silver Maple, vines, narrow form, some dead branches, multistem (14", 6") 329 MA 30 MU 3 4 7 Silver Maple, vines, multistem 10", 10", 8", 18", asymetric 330 MA 12 3 1 4 Norway Maple, wines, rot, leaning X 331 AS 8 2 2 4 Black Ash, epicormic sprouting, asymetric, leaning 332 MA 6 3 3 6 Silver Maple, asymetric, dead branches, vines 333 MA 10 3 3 6 Silver Maple, vines, codominant lead, epicormic sprouting 334 MA 12 MU 3 3 6 Silver Maple, vines, narrow form, some dead branches, multistem 6", 10" 335 CW 28 4 5 9 leaning 336 CW 12 3 4 7 leaning, epicormic sprouting, asymetrical 337 MA 12 4 4 8 Norway Maple, leaning, asymetric, leaf spots X 338 HI 32 4 5 9 339 CH 6 X 3 3 6 Black Cherry, asymmetric, leaning, some small dead branches 340 AS 10 4 4 8 leaning, asymetrical, some dieback 341 MA 14 4 5 9 Norway Maple X 342 MA 8 X 4 4 8 Norway Mapple X Page 6 of 16 900 King Street Tree Survey with Condition Key Tree type Key Tree type Key Tree type AP Apple EM Elm PI Pine AS Ash FR Fir PLUM Plum BE Beech GINK Ginkgo PR Pear BR Birch HI Hickory SR Spruce CA Catalpa LI Linden SY Sycamore CD Cedar LO Locust TOH Tree of Heaven CH Cherry MA Maple TU Tulip CN Conifer MU Mulberry WT Walnut CW Cottonwood OK Oak WI Willow DE Deciduous YE Yew Tree # Species DBH Removal Form Health Structure Total Notes Non‐native/invasive 343 MA 10 X 3 3 6 Silver Maple, vines, asymetric, broken structural branches 344 OK 6 X 4 4 8 Red Oak, asymmetric 345 MA 12 4 4 8 Red Maple, asymetric 346 AS 6 2 3 5 Black Ash, leaning, epicormic sprouting, no lower branches 347 MA 12 4 4 8 Norway Maple, well balanced X 348 AS 12 3 3 6 Ash, narrow, broken structural branches 349 MA 6 4 4 8 Norway Maple, asymmetric X 350 MA 10 3 4 7 Norway Maple, epicormic sprouting, growing in roots of Pine X 352 PI 22 3 3 6 Codominant leader, dieback 353 AS 6 2 2 4 Split in truck, broken leader 354 PI 28 3 4 7 White Pine, narrow, dieback, few lower branches 355 MA 8 3 3 6 Norway Maple, broken lead, broken scaffold branches, vines X 356 MA 16 X 2 5 7 Sugar Maple, double leader 358 MA 26 X 3 4 7 Silver Maple, epicormic sprouting, growing out of debris 359 MA 26 X 3 4 7 Silver Maple, vines, broken scaffod branches 360 MA 30 2 2 4 Silver Maple, leaning, cavities, epicormic sprouting 361 MA 12 3 4 7 Silver Maple, assymetric, vines 362 MA 26 2 3 5 Silver Maple, leaning, epicormic sprouting 363 MA 8 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, asymmetric X 364 MA 12 X 3 4 7 Norway Maple, asymmetric X 365 PLUM 10 4 4 8 Fungal infection, leaning 366 PLUM 10 5 3 8 Mechanical damage, some dead small branches 367 MA 16 3 4 7 Norway Maple, broken scaffold branches, asymmetric 368 GINK 26 2 2 4 Lots of dead scaffold branches 369 MA 14 3 4 7 Norway Maple, some dead lower branches, growing at base of the other trees, asymmetric X 370 MA 12 X 3 4 7 Norway Maple, asymmetric, vines X 371 MA 8 X 3 4 7 Norway Maple, asymmetric, some dead branches X 372 MA 6 3 3 6 Norway Maple, asymmetric, epicormic sprouting X 373 PI 24 X 3 4 7 White Pine, broken lower branches 374 MA 8 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, codominant lead X 375 MA 12 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, asymmetric X 376 MA 6 X 3 3 6 Norway Maple, narrow form, large trunk wound X 377 MA 16 X 3 3 6 Norway Maple, leaf spots X 378 MA 10 X 3 3 6 Norway Maple, narrow form, asymmetric, growing out at base of 379 X 379 MA 8 X 3 3 6 Norway Maple, narrow form, asymmetric, some dead branches, epicormic sprouting, growing at base of 378 X 380 MA 10 X 3 4 7 Norway Maple, broken leader X 381 MA 12 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, asymmetric, vines, epicormic sprouting X Page 7 of 16 900 King Street Tree Survey with Condition Key Tree type Key Tree type Key Tree type AP Apple EM Elm PI Pine AS Ash FR Fir PLUM Plum BE Beech GINK Ginkgo PR Pear BR Birch HI Hickory SR Spruce CA Catalpa LI Linden SY Sycamore CD Cedar LO Locust TOH Tree of Heaven CH Cherry MA Maple TU Tulip CN Conifer MU Mulberry WT Walnut CW Cottonwood OK Oak WI Willow DE Deciduous YE Yew Tree # Species DBH Removal Form Health Structure Total Notes Non‐native/invasive 382 MA 12 X 3 3 6 Norway Maple, vines, asymetric, epicormic sprouting X 383 MA 12 X 2 1 3 Norway Maple, rot, broken leader, epicormic sprouting, unbalanced X 384 AS 6 X 3 4 7 Asymetric, vines 385 AS 6 X 3 1 4 Green Ash, vines, dieback 386 MA 10 2 3 5 Norway Maple, broken leader, epicormic sprouting X 387 MA 10 3 3 6 Red Maple, narrow form, epicormic sprouting 388 MA 14 3 4 7 Norway Maple, vines, asymmetric 390 MA 18 3 3 6 Norway Maple, asymmetric, broken scaffold branches, epicormic sprouting X 391 MA 12 4 4 8 Norway Maple, asymmetric X 392 MA 14 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, some leaf spots X 394 MA 10 X 2 3 5 Norway Maple, split X 395 MA 8 X 3 3 6 Norway Maple, large trunk wound, epicormic sprouting X 396 MA 6 X 1 1 2 Norway Maple, broken leader X 397 MA 6 X 3 3 6 Norway Maple, large trunk wound, epicormic sprouting, leaning X 398 MA 12 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, asymmetric, trunk wound X 399 MA 10 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, some dead branches X 400 PI 10 X 4 3 7 White Pine, dead lower branches, vines 401 MA 8 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, dead lower branches X 402 MA 8 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple X 403 MA 24 X 2 3 5 Red Maple, broken leader, epicormic sprouting, very mature 404 LI 6 X 3 4 7 American Basswood, broken leader 405 MA 8 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, asymmetric X 406 MA 14 X 3 4 7 Norway Maple, trunk wound, asymmetric, leaf spots X 408 MA 42 X 3 3 6 Silver Maple, vines, rot, some broken branches, epicormic sprouting, very mature 409 GINK 26 3 3 6 Ginko, vine, some epicormic sprouting, leaning, broken branches 410 MA 14 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, multiple leaders, some dead branches X 411 AS 6 X 5 5 10 Green Ash 413 MA 26 X 4 3 7 Silver Maple 414 MUL 20 X 2 3 5 Mulberry, leaning, trunk wounds, multiple leaders 415 MA 4.5 X ‐ ‐ 0 Red Maple (DBH too small) 416 EM 10 X 3 3 6 Broken scaffold branch, dead scaffold branches, vines 417 MUL 14 X 3 4 7 Mulberry, leaning, vines 418 MUL 10 X 2 2 4 Mulberry, multiple truck wounds, leaning, borer holes 419 MUL 5 X ‐ ‐ 0 DBH too small 420 MUL 16 X 2 2 4 Mulberry, borrer holes, leaning, vines 422 MUL 10 X 2 1 3 Mulberry, leaning, basal rot 423 MA 6 X 4 3 7 Silver Maple 424 MUL 8 X 2 2 4 Mulberry, borrer holes, vines 426 MUL 5 X ‐ ‐ 0 DBH too small 427 MUL 6 3 3 6 Leaning, dead branches Page 8 of 16 900 King Street Tree Survey with Condition Key Tree type Key Tree type Key Tree type AP Apple EM Elm PI Pine AS Ash FR Fir PLUM Plum BE Beech GINK Ginkgo PR Pear BR Birch HI Hickory SR Spruce CA Catalpa LI Linden SY Sycamore CD Cedar LO Locust TOH Tree of Heaven CH Cherry MA Maple TU Tulip CN Conifer MU Mulberry WT Walnut CW Cottonwood OK Oak WI Willow DE Deciduous YE Yew Tree # Species DBH Removal Form Health Structure Total Notes Non‐native/invasive 428 MA 12 3 3 6 Silver Maple, epicormic sprouting, asymmetric 430 MUL 16 4 4 8 Mulberry 431 MUL 8 2 2 4 Mulberry, leaning, dead branches 432 MUL 6 X 2 2 4 Mulberry, leaning, dead branches 433 MA 12 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, leaning, leaf spots X 434 AS 14 X 1 1 2 trunk rot, barely alive 435 LI 8 X 4 5 9 Leaning 436 MA 43 X MU 3 4 7 Silver Maple, excessive vine, multi 32, 24, 12, 12" 439 MA 14 X 3 2 5 Excessive vines, leaning, broken branches 440 MA 6 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, leaning X 441 AS 6 X 4 4 8 Leaf liners 442 AS 6 X 3 4 7 vines, asymmetric 443 AS 6 X 4 4 8 Asymmetric, dieback, miltiple leaders 444 AS 6 X 4 3 7 Dieback 445 MA 6 X 3 3 6 Norway Maple, asymmetric, dead small branches X 446 MA 26 X 2 3 5 Norway Maple, broken structural branches X 447 AS 6 X 4 4 8 Asymmetric, some small dead branches 450 MA 22 X MU 3 4 7 Silver Maple, multistem (20", 6", 6"), leaning, some dieback 451 MA 8 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, some dieback X 452 AS 10 X 3 3 6 Black Ash, leaning, epicormic sprouting, vines 454 DE 12 X 2 3 5 Mulberry, multiple steams, lots of vines, dieback, crack on trunk 455 MA 6 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, leaning, some dieback X 457 MA 12 X 3 3 6 Norway Maple, codominant lead, dieback, asymmetric X 458 MA 28 X 4 4 8 Silver maple, epicormic sprouting 460 MA 14 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, asymmetric, dieback X 461 MA 26 X 3 3 6 Silver Maple, codominant lead, some epicormic sprouting, some broken structural branches 462 MA 6 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, asymmetric X 463 MA 8 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, asymmetric, dieback X 464 MA 6 X 3 4 7 Norway Maple, asymmetric, leaning X 465 MA 12 X MU 4 3 7 Norway Maple, some dieback, multistem (10", 6")X 466 SR 16 X 4 4 8 Asymmetric 467 SR 12 X 4 4 8 Vine 469 SR 14 X 4 4 8 Leaning, some vine, some dieback 470 SR 6 X 3 4 7 Some vie, asymmetric, dieback, double leader 471 SR 16 X 4 5 9 Leaning 473 SR 12 X 3 3 6 Asymmetric, dieback 474 SR 10 X MU 2 4 6 Codominant leaders 8", 6" 475 SR 14 X 2 4 6 Asymmetric, dieback 477 SR 8 X 3 4 7 Asymmetric 482 MA 20 X 2 3 5 Norway Maple, vines, double leader, broken limbs X 483 MA 8 X MU 3 4 7 Sycamore Maple, multistem (6", 4", 4"), asymmetric 484 MA 18 X 3 3 6 Norway Maple, vines multistemed, dieback X 485 MA 12 X TR 3 3 6 Silver Maple, vines, multistemed, dieback 486 CH 6 X 3 4 7 Asymmetric, growing at base of 486 Page 9 of 16 900 King Street Tree Survey with Condition Key Tree type Key Tree type Key Tree type AP Apple EM Elm PI Pine AS Ash FR Fir PLUM Plum BE Beech GINK Ginkgo PR Pear BR Birch HI Hickory SR Spruce CA Catalpa LI Linden SY Sycamore CD Cedar LO Locust TOH Tree of Heaven CH Cherry MA Maple TU Tulip CN Conifer MU Mulberry WT Walnut CW Cottonwood OK Oak WI Willow DE Deciduous YE Yew Tree # Species DBH Removal Form Health Structure Total Notes Non‐native/invasive 488 CH 12 X 2 1 3 Asymmetric, major dieback 489 MA 6 X 3 2 5 Norway Maple, fungus, rot spots X 490 MA 6 X 3 4 7 Norway Maple, growing at base of 488, asymmetric X 491 MA 26 X 3 2 5 Silver Maple, multistem, one dead leader, vines 492 PI 24 X 4 4 8 Double leader, some dieback 493 SR 24 X 5 5 10 495 SR 18 X 3 3 6 Weeping sap, borrer holes, double leaders 497 SR 12 X 4 4 8 Slight lean 499 SR 8 X 3 4 7 Multiple leaders, some vines 500 SR 8 X 3 4 7 Asymmetric, slight lean, dieback 501 SR 16 X 4 4 8 Dieback 502 CH 6 X 4 4 8 Cherry, dieback, circling root 504 CH 8 X TW 3 5 8 Cherry, double leader 505 MA 23 TW 3 2 5 norway maple, double leader (18",14"), large cavity 506 MA 28 TW 3 2 5 silver maple, one dead leader, double (16", 23") 507 OK 10 3 3 6 red oak, vines, assymmetric 508 MA 6 2 1 3 silver maple, vine, dead leader 509 MA 10 3 4 7 norway maple, some vines, leaning 510 MA 25 MU 3 3 6 norway maple, tripple leader (24", 8", x") growing from wall X 511 TOH 6 2 0 2 leaning X 512 TOH 6 1 3 4 poor structure, leaning, double leader X 513 TOH 18 2 1 3 excessive vines, growing from debris, leaning X 514 TOH 6 0 X 515 DE 6 0 516 TOH 10 1 1 2 leaning, growing through fence X 517 DE 6 4 3 7 growing through fence, norway maple 518 TOH 6 X 0 X 519 MA 6 X 0 520 MA 8 X 1 3 4 norway maple, old gence encircled by tree X 521 EM 12 3 3 6 leaning 522 DE 16 X 3 2 5 Excessive vines, leaning 523 OK 12 X 3 3 6 red oak, leaning, asymetric, vines 524 HI 16 X 3 3 6 large cavity, vines 525 MA 12 X 3 4 7 Norway Maple, leaning, leaf spots, fungus X 526 DE 10 X 0 0 0 Dead 527 MA 26 X MU 2 3 5 Norway maple, multistem, some dieback (18", 16", 10")X 528 MA 12 X 3 3 6 Norway maple, asymmetric, leaning, some dieback X 529 TU 12 X 4 4 8 Asymetric 530 AP 6 X 0 531 AP 6 X 1 3 4 Pussy willow, split and basal rot, epicormic sprouting 532 WI 8 X 4 4 8 533 WI 10 X 3 3 6 Pussy willow, split and basal rot, epicormic sprouting 534 WI 10 X 4 4 8 Pussy willow, some dieback 535 WI 10 X 4 4 8 vines 536 MA 26 X 0 Page 10 of 16 900 King Street Tree Survey with Condition Key Tree type Key Tree type Key Tree type AP Apple EM Elm PI Pine AS Ash FR Fir PLUM Plum BE Beech GINK Ginkgo PR Pear BR Birch HI Hickory SR Spruce CA Catalpa LI Linden SY Sycamore CD Cedar LO Locust TOH Tree of Heaven CH Cherry MA Maple TU Tulip CN Conifer MU Mulberry WT Walnut CW Cottonwood OK Oak WI Willow DE Deciduous YE Yew Tree # Species DBH Removal Form Health Structure Total Notes Non‐native/invasive 537 TU 12 X TW 4 4 8 vines, asymmetric 538 OK 34 0 539 MA 6 0 540 AS 6 3 3 6 Some dieback, asymmetric 541 MA 16 X 0 542 AS 8 X 3 4 7 Asymmetric, double leader 543 SY 34 0 544 MA 8 X TR 2 4 6 Norway Maple, Epicormic Sprouting, dieback X 545 BR 6 0 546 LI 10 0 552 MA 12 X 2 4 6 Norway Maple, unbalanced, broken leads X 561 SR 14 X 5 4 9 Some dieback 563 SR 14 X 3 4 7 Some vies, some dieback 564 EM 10 X 4 3 7 Epicormic Sprouting 565 PR 6 X 3 4 7 Some vines, multistem 566 MUL 12 X 4 3 7 Mulberry, some rot, dieback 567 DE 10 X 0 568 MA 8 X 3 2 5 Silver Maple, double leader, lots of vine 570 WT 6 X 4 3 7 Some vines 585 CH 8 X 5 5 10 Slight lean 586 CH 8 X 4 5 9 Slight lean 587 CH 6 X 5 5 10 588 CH 6 X TW 4 5 9 Multiple leaders 589 CH 14 X 5 5 10 Youthful, excellent form 590 SR 6 X 2 4 6 Basal trunk wound, leaning 591 SY 36 X 5 5 10 little epicormic sprouting 592 PI 8 X 4 5 9 Chinese fir, Little asymmetric 593 PI 8 X 4 4 8 Chinese fir, Little asymmetric 594 MA 22 X 3 4 7 Norway Maple, mechanical root damage, asymmetric X 595 MA 22 X 3 4 7 Norway Maple, leaning, asymmetric X 596 MA 22 X 4 3 7 Norway Maple, some dieback X 597 MA 20 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, double leader X 598 MA 20 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, some dieback X 599 SR 12 X 4 4 8 dieback, leaning 600 SR 6 X 3 3 6 dieback, leaning 601 MA 8 X 2 3 5 Norway Maple, asymmetric X 602 MA 29 X TR 3 4 7 Norway Maple, Tripple (18", 16", 16")X 603 OK 12 X 3 4 7 Few scaffold branches, growing with 604 604 MA 12 X 4 3 7 Norway Maple, some dieback, growing with 603 X 605 OK 10 X 2 3 5 Red Oak, some dieback, leaning, few scaffold branches 606 MA 10 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, some epicormic sprouting X 607 HI 12 X 3 4 7 Few structural branches 608 OK 12 X 3 3 6 Red Oak, basal trunkwound, asymmedtric, dieback 609 MA 22 X 3 4 7 Norway Maple, limbed up high, leaning X 624 SR 12 X 4 3 7 Some dieback 625 SR 14 X 5 4 9 Dieback, parasite 629 SY 38 5 5 10 Some basal vines in a small area 630 OK 38 0 Red oak, some dead branches 631 SR 8 3 1 4 Dieback, leaning 633 OK 34 4 4 8 Red oak, epicormic sprouting Page 11 of 16 900 King Street Tree Survey with Condition Key Tree type Key Tree type Key Tree type AP Apple EM Elm PI Pine AS Ash FR Fir PLUM Plum BE Beech GINK Ginkgo PR Pear BR Birch HI Hickory SR Spruce CA Catalpa LI Linden SY Sycamore CD Cedar LO Locust TOH Tree of Heaven CH Cherry MA Maple TU Tulip CN Conifer MU Mulberry WT Walnut CW Cottonwood OK Oak WI Willow DE Deciduous YE Yew Tree # Species DBH Removal Form Health Structure Total Notes Non‐native/invasive 635 OK 6 4 5 9 Norway Maple, asymetric 639 MA 21 MU 4 4 8 Norway Maple, some leaf spots, multi (20", 6")X 641 MA 27 MU 3 4 7 Norway maple, leaf spots, multi 12", 24"X 643 OK 12 3 4 7 Red oak, leaning 644 OK 6 2 3 5 Red oak, leaning, vines, dead branches 646 MA 8 2 2 4 Norway maple, excessive vines X 647 OK 6 2 2 4 Excessive vines, growing with 646 648 TU 10 3 2 5 Excessive vines (oriental bittersweet), growing with 647 649 AS 6 3 3 6 White ash, vines (oriental bittersweet), leaning 650 MA 6 0 651 MA 8 3 2 5 norway maple, asymetric, vines X 677 BE 26 4 4 8 American Beech, some dieback 678 BE 20 4 3 7 American Beech, some suckering, some epicormic sprouting 679 MA 24 X 3 4 7 Norway Maple, mechanical root damage, leaning X 680 MUL 12 X TW 2 3 5 Mulberry, double leader, epicormic sprouting 681 TU 38 4 3 7 Dieback, borrers 682 LI 18 3 2 5 American Basswood, suckering, dieback 683 BE 19 TW 2 2 4 twin 16", 10", dieback, epicormic sprouting 684 TU 38 2 1 3 Nearly dead 685 MA 10 3 4 7 Norway Maple, asymmetric, leaf spots X 686 OK 36 X 4 4 8 Red Oak, asymmetric, some epicormic sprouting 687 LI 10 3 5 8 Leaning, intertwined 688 TU 38 3 3 6 Leaning, dieback 689 MA 14 4 4 8 Norway Maple, asymmetric, leaning X 690 MA 22 MU 4 4 8 Leaning, multi 20", 10" 691 OK 24 0 692 MA 6 0 693 CH 6 0 694 MA 6 0 695 LO 6 0 696 MA 6 0 697 LO 14 0 698 LO 10 0 699 MA 8 0 700 MA 6 0 701 LO 16 0 702 MA 6 0 703 MA 8 0 704 MA 6 0 705 MA 6 0 706 MA 36 0 707 MA 8 0 708 OK 48 0 709 MA 6 0 710 MA 6 0 711 MA 12 0 712 OK 6 0 713 MA 12 0 714 BR 8 0 Page 12 of 16 900 King Street Tree Survey with Condition Key Tree type Key Tree type Key Tree type AP Apple EM Elm PI Pine AS Ash FR Fir PLUM Plum BE Beech GINK Ginkgo PR Pear BR Birch HI Hickory SR Spruce CA Catalpa LI Linden SY Sycamore CD Cedar LO Locust TOH Tree of Heaven CH Cherry MA Maple TU Tulip CN Conifer MU Mulberry WT Walnut CW Cottonwood OK Oak WI Willow DE Deciduous YE Yew Tree # Species DBH Removal Form Health Structure Total Notes Non‐native/invasive 715 MA 20 0 716 CH 6 0 717 MA 6 0 718 CH 8 0 719 CH 12 0 720 MA 8 0 721 MA 6 0 722 MA 12 0 723 CH 10 0 724 MA 22 0 725 CH 12 4 4 8 Black Cherry, asymmetric 726 PI 18 0 0 0 Dead 727 TOH 10 2 3 5 Asymmetric, dieback X 728 TOH 10 MU 2 3 5 Asymmetric, dieback, multi 6", 8"X 729 TOH 6 2 3 5 Asymmetric, dieback X 730 TOH 6 2 3 5 Asymmetric, dieback X 731 MA 12 3 5 8 Norway Maple, asymmetric X 732 MA 14 3 5 8 Norway Maple, asymmetric X 733 MA 16 2 4 6 Norway Maple, leaning, asymmetric, some dieback X 734 OK 34 0 735 DE 8 0 736 DE 6 0 737 SY 36 0 738 SY 22 0 739 OK 6 0 740 OK 10 0 741 OK 8 0 742 OK 8 2 3 5 Red Oak, leaning, dieback 743 OK 8 3 2 5 Red Oak, Vine, Epicormic Sprouting 744 OK 8 4 4 8 Red Oak, slight lean 745 DE 8 0 746 MA 18 0 747 MA 18 0 748 OK 20 0 749 OK 38 0 750 MA 22 0 751 MA 6 0 752 MA 14 0 753 MA 22 MU 0 20, 8 754 MA 22 0 755 MA 6 0 756 MA 6 0 757 MA 6 0 758 MA 28 0 759 MA 24 0 760 MA 10 0 761 MA 6 0 762 MA 30 0 763 MA 6 0 765 MA 20 0 766 MA 6 0 767 MA 6 0 768 OK 36 0 Page 13 of 16 900 King Street Tree Survey with Condition Key Tree type Key Tree type Key Tree type AP Apple EM Elm PI Pine AS Ash FR Fir PLUM Plum BE Beech GINK Ginkgo PR Pear BR Birch HI Hickory SR Spruce CA Catalpa LI Linden SY Sycamore CD Cedar LO Locust TOH Tree of Heaven CH Cherry MA Maple TU Tulip CN Conifer MU Mulberry WT Walnut CW Cottonwood OK Oak WI Willow DE Deciduous YE Yew Tree # Species DBH Removal Form Health Structure Total Notes Non‐native/invasive 769 MA 6 0 770 MA 16 0 771 MA 12 0 772 MA 6 0 773 MA 16 0 774 MA 18 0 775 CH 18 0 776 MA 14 TW 0 777 MA 6 0 778 MA 8 0 779 MA 8 0 780 MA 6 0 781 MA 6 0 782 MA 6 0 783 CH 8 0 784 MA 12 0 785 MA 8 0 786 MA 6 0 787 MA 8 0 788 OK 28 0 789 MA 8 0 790 MA 6 0 791 MA 8 0 792 MA 8 0 793 DE 6 TR 0 794 MA 10 0 795 MA 10 0 796 OK 36 0 797 MA 6 0 798 MA 8 0 799 MA 6 0 800 DE 6 0 801 MA 6 0 802 MA 6 0 803 MA 10 0 804 MA 10 0 805 MA 14 0 806 MA 12 TW 0 807 MA 10 0 808 MA 16 0 809 MA 12 MU 0 10, 6 810 MA 17 MU 0 12, 10, 6 811 MA 10 0 812 MA 12 MU 0 10, 6 813 MA 16 0 814 MA 8 0 815 MA 16 MU 0 14, 8 816 MA 8 0 817 MA 6 0 818 MA 14 4 4 8 Norway Maple, some dead branches X 819 CA 10 0 850 MA 15 1 1 2 norway maple, vines, broken leader X 851 MA 13 4 4 8 norway maple X 852 PI 7.1 4 3 7 white pine, vines, dropping needles Page 14 of 16 900 King Street Tree Survey with Condition Key Tree type Key Tree type Key Tree type AP Apple EM Elm PI Pine AS Ash FR Fir PLUM Plum BE Beech GINK Ginkgo PR Pear BR Birch HI Hickory SR Spruce CA Catalpa LI Linden SY Sycamore CD Cedar LO Locust TOH Tree of Heaven CH Cherry MA Maple TU Tulip CN Conifer MU Mulberry WT Walnut CW Cottonwood OK Oak WI Willow DE Deciduous YE Yew Tree # Species DBH Removal Form Health Structure Total Notes Non‐native/invasive 853 PI 7.3 3 2 5 white pine, dieback 854 TOH 10 3 2 5 leaning, vines X 855 MUL 7.5 1 1 2 large trunk wound, vines 856 MUL 18 3 2 5 tripple leader, excessive vines 857 WI 10.1 MU 1 3 4 Pussy willow, multistem, epicormic sprouting multi: 4.5, 5, 3, 3.4,6 858 SR 15 4 3 7 dieback, asymetric 859 SR 18 2 3 5 one broken leader, dieback 860 SR 13 3 3 6 dieback, asymetric 861 SR 19 3 3 6 broken leader, dieback, asymetric 862 SR 18 4 4 8 dieback, leaning, vines 863 MA 10.7 4 3 7 norway maple, fungal infection X 864 PI 6.5 2 4 6 white pine, asymetric, no leader 865 PI 12.7 MU 2 2 4 white pine, twin (9", 9"), leaning, excessive vines 866 LI 15 3 5 8 American basswood, multistem 867 LI 22.2 MU 4 5 9 American basswood, multistem (13", 18") 868 LI 6 3 4 7 American basswood,leaning, epicormic sprouting 869 LI 11 4 4 8 American basswood 870 LI 13.4 MU 4 4 8 American basswood, multistem 7, 5.5, 10 871 LI 16 3 4 7 American basswood, asymetric, leaning, multistem, crossing branches 872 LI 11 4 4 8 American basswood, multi stem,narrow form 873 LI 9.9 MU 3 4 7 American basswood, multistem (twin‐ 7", 7") 874 LI 14 3 2 5 American basswood, double leader, fungal infection 875 LI 11.9 MU 3 4 7 American basswood, multistem, some dieback (9", 5", 6") 876 LI 12.2 MU 2 2 4 American basswood, two dead leaders, multistem (7", 6", 8"), fungal infection 877 LI 13 1 4 5 American basswood, twisted, growing out of a stone 878 LI 37 4 4 8 American basswood, large trunkwound 879 MA 22 4 3 7 norway mapple, leaning, rot, fungal infection X 880 LI 14 2 3 5 American basswood, codominant leader, leaning, trunk wound 881 LI 8 4 4 8 American basswood, narrow, epicormic sprouting 882 LI 16 44 8American basswood, narrow, epicormic sprouting 883 MA 24 MU 4 4 8 norway maple, multistem (23", 7"), leaf spots X 884 CH 12 3 1 4 Excessive vines 885 OK 17 4 4 8 red oak, asymetric, growitng with 886 886 CT 12 3 3 6 Horse chestnut, asymetric, growing with 885, vines 887 AS 8 4 4 8 black ash 900 AS 18 5 4 9 Epicormic Sprouting, codominant lead 901 LI 9 5 5 10 Little Leaf Linden, some mechanical root damage 902 MA 11 X 3 3 6 Norway Maple, leaning, some mechanical damgage, leaf spots, broken scaffold X 903 AS 9 X 1 4 5 No structural branches 904 MA 17 X 4 4 8 Norway Maple, lots of vines X 905 WT 22.8 MU 54 9 Multistem (9", 21"), vines, growing from debris Page 15 of 16 900 King Street Tree Survey with Condition Key Tree type Key Tree type Key Tree type AP Apple EM Elm PI Pine AS Ash FR Fir PLUM Plum BE Beech GINK Ginkgo PR Pear BR Birch HI Hickory SR Spruce CA Catalpa LI Linden SY Sycamore CD Cedar LO Locust TOH Tree of Heaven CH Cherry MA Maple TU Tulip CN Conifer MU Mulberry WT Walnut CW Cottonwood OK Oak WI Willow DE Deciduous YE Yew Tree # Species DBH Removal Form Health Structure Total Notes Non‐native/invasive 906 MUL 9 3 2 5 Mulberry, trunk wound, leaning, epicormic sprouting 907 SR 14 4 3 7 Some dieback 908 TOH 10 MU 31 4 Lots of vines, Multistem (6", 8")X 909 TOH 14 4 4 8 Vines X 910 MUL 13 2 3 5 Mulberry, leaning, epicormic sprouting 911 MUL 6 2 2 4 Mulberry, growing in debris, lots of vines, lots of dieback 912 AS 29.1 MU 34 7 Multistem (14", 20", 16"), leaning 913 CH 7.2 MU 34 7 leaning (multistem 6", 4") 914 OK 7 3 4 7 red oak, asymetric, some dieback Page 16 of 16 Appendix D-5 Wetland Functional Assessment Environmental, Planning, and Engineering Consultants 34 South Broadway Suite 401 White Plains, NY 10601 tel: 914 949-7336 fax: 914 949-7559 www.akrf.com 1 Memorandum To: Peter Duncan, 900 King Street Owner LLC From: Jim Nash, (Ecologist, AKRF Inc.) Date: June 28, 2018 Re: 900 King St - Wetland Functional Assessment cc: Peter Feroe (AKRF) WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT The following is a qualitative wetland functional assessment of onsite wetlands A and D provided to assess functions currently provided by the site’s wetlands and to determine likely impacts (adverse or beneficial) from development of the Proposed Project. As discussed below, the wetlands A and D serve primarily “contribution of abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation” and “storm and floodwater storage” wetland functions respectively, that would be preserved or enhanced with development of the Proposed Project. Wetland functional categories are taken from Hollands and Magee1, with values rated low/medium/high based on data collected during site investigations (April/May and September of 2017) and through examination of additional resources, including existing drainage plans, topographic maps, soil maps, and historic maps/aerials of the project site. Wetlands B, C and E are located primarily offsite and are sustained entirely by offsite hydrology, including runoff from the Hutchinson River Parkway and residential properties to the north. Therefore, this assessment focuses on Wetlands A and D, which are located primarily onsite and receive a portion of their hydrology from onsite runoff. HYDROLOGY Wetlands A and D are located in topographic depressions on the west side and east side of the Project Site parcel respectively. Field inspection indicates that Wetland A receives its hydrology primarily as surface runoff from surrounding lands. Wetland D was constructed as a stormwater detention basin concurrent with development of the original office building in the early 1980’s and receives its hydrology from the 1 "A Rapid Procedure for Assessing Wetland Functional Capacity based on Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) Classification, February 1998" (manual) by Dennis W. Magee with technical contributions from Garrett G. Hollands. 900 King Street – Wetland Functional Assessment 6.28.18 2 office building’s onsite stormwater drainage network and from stormwater drainage networks located offsite on the adjacent Village Hall and Police Department properties and from the Hutchinson River Parkway. As shown in the Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP, 4.19.18) prepared for the Proposed Project, the site’s overall drainage area (both onsite and offsite) is approximately 21.54 acres in size. The drainage area to Wetland A is 5.56 acres and consists of the sloped lawns and landscaped areas of the Project Site and the adjacent Arbors residential development. Wetland A consists of a narrow strip of forested wetland at the lowest points of a topographic depression. The drainage area of Wetland D is 17.0 acres in size and consists of the Project Site’s building, parking areas, and the offsite stormwater collection systems of the adjacent Village Hall, Police Department, Fire Department, and Hutchinson River Parkway. Historic Aerials of the Project Site show that Wetland D (the onsite detention basin) did not exist prior to the 1980’s and Wetland A was part of the open lawn/hedgerow landscaped portion of the former estate that occupied the site prior to the 1980’s. As such, both wetlands are of recent origin. Onsite soils mapped by the NRCS are all “moderately well drained” to “well drained”, which typically do not contain wetland resources. Wetland A is comprised of two soil mapping units: Uf – Urban Land, which consists of graded and fill materials, and UhC – Urban land-Charlton complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes, which consists of urban land and the well-drained Charlton soils formed on ridges and hilltops. Wetland D is almost entirely underlain by the Uf-Urban Land soil mapping unit, consisting of fill material for which drainage class and other soil characteristics pertinent to wetlands are not provided by the NRCS, and a small portion of PnC – Paxton fine sandy loam 8 to 15 percent slopes which consists of very deep, “well drained” soils located on the side and top of long ridges and small hilltops. No “hydric” (wetland) soils are mapped for the Project Site by the NRCS. WETLAND HYDROLOGY FUNCTIONS - Modification of Groundwater Discharge – Wetland A – low, Wetland D – low Wetland A is not evident on historic aerials and underlain by well-drained soils. Wetland A likely formed from the increased surface runoff resulting from site development in the early 1980’s. Its depressional shape and landscape position cause it to retain surface runoff and saturated soil conditions for brief periods after precipitation events sufficient to support hydrophytic vegetation. As such, Wetland A is unlikely to be sustained by groundwater and therefore its “modification of groundwater discharge” functions are low. Wetland D was created as a stormwater detention basin with inputs of runoff conveyed by pipe from the Project Site, the adjacent Village Hall, Police Department, and Fire Department property and the adjacent Hutchinson River Parkway. It does not intercept groundwater as evidenced by its lack of prolonged inundation in the basin. Rather, it sustains sufficient saturated soil conditions to accommodate a monoculture of Phragmites australis from the periodic surface water inputs. Therefore, it does not provide any appreciable “modification of groundwater discharge” functions. - Modification of Groundwater Recharge – Wetland A – low/medium, Wetland D - medium Both Wetland A and Wetland D detain surface water onsite for a period during and after rainstorms, therefore both provide an opportunity for surface water to infiltrate into the surficial groundwater aquifer. The residence time of surface water detention is not long for either wetland, as evidenced by their lack of an ordinary high water mark or evident ponding during site inspections. Their capture of silt/sediment from the surrounding developments likely also limits 900 King Street – Wetland Functional Assessment 6.28.18 3 their infiltration capacity. Nevertheless, both wetlands likely serve moderate “modification of groundwater recharge” functions, with Wetland D potentially providing more groundwater infiltration due to its outlet control structure which detains surface water for a longer period. - Storm and Floodwater Storage – Wetland A – low, Wetland D – high Due to their depressional landscape positions, both Wetland A and Wetland D serve some stormwater storage functions. Wetland A has a gradual slope and no berm or other outlet control, and exhibits no evidence of sustained surface water storage (water marks, drift lines) and therefore does not store surface water runoff to an appreciable extent. By contrast, Wetland D has an outlet control structure so it detains runoff as ponded surface water for brief periods during and soon after rain storms. It also has a clearly defined outlet channel (“Stream S”) which conveys these stored surface water flows from Wetland D. Therefore, Wetland D provides high “storm and floodwater storage” functions. - Modification of Stream Flow –Wetland A – low, Wetland D – low/medium Both Wetland A and Wetland D are small in size (less than ¼ acre each) and do not retain surface water runoff to an appreciable degree as a large surface water body would, nor do they modify downstream flows to a significant degree as a large marsh or large forested wetland complex would. Neither Wetlands A or D sustain down-stream flows during periods of dry weather, which is among the benefits wetlands may provide to aquatic species and riparian ecosystems. Rather, stormwater runoff travels quickly through the onsite wetlands. As such, Wetlands A and D provide minimal “modification of stream flow” functions. WETLAND WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS - Modification of Water Quality – Wetland A – low, Wetland D – medium Wetland A is a narrow, forested/shrub wetland surrounded by developed lands that slopes gradually but continuously southwards and therefore does not retain stormwater for a sufficiently long period to provide substantial nutrient uptake/cycling or sediment removal functions. It does provide these functions to a higher degree than upland habitat (such as wetland buffer) as evidenced by hydric soil indicators and it may allow for some recharge to groundwater to the benefit of water quality. Nevertheless, as compared to wetlands that retain runoff to a higher degree and have a complex community of wetland plants/animals, nutrient removal and “modification of water quality” functions in Wetland A are low. Wetland D was constructed as a detention basin and clearly allows for sediment settling, as evidenced by the watermarks and sediment accumulated in the basin. While nutrient removal/cycling functions are low in Wetland D due to lack of sustained inundated conditions, sediment removal in itself can sequester N/P nutrient pollutants via adsorption to sediment particles which will benefits downstream water quality. Therefore, Wetland D provides moderate “modification of water quality” functions. - Export of Detritus –Wetland A and Wetland D – low/medium The turnover of senesced vegetation as a source of carbon and nutrients for flora/fauna occupying downstream receiving waters is expected to be minimal for both Wetland A and Wetland D. Wetland A has a more diverse assemblage of plant species, but because it is a depressional wetland without a substantial surface water discharge, export of significant amounts of detrital plant material is not occurring. Mineralization of detritus by soil microbes and reuptake by plants/animals occurs largely within the wetland itself. Therefore, the “export of detritus” 900 King Street – Wetland Functional Assessment 6.28.18 4 functions of Wetland A are low. Wetland D is dominated by common reed (Phragmites australis). The production of litter and processing of plant material by vertebrates, invertebrates, and microbes can be less active in wetlands that have “flashy” hydrology regimes, such as detention basins, and in those that are dominated by a single plant species (Phragmites) having a high lignin content in its tissues. Furthermore, such stormwater-stressed and vegetatively monotypic wetlands do not support a complex community of detritivores necessary for efficient processing plant material. Nevertheless, as compared to Wetland A, Wetland D provides moderate “export of detritus” functions for that portion of the Phragmites leaf/stem litter that is broken down and/or mineralized and flushed out of the basin during storm events. FLORA/FAUNA Wetland A is a forested/shrub dominated wetland with American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), hawthorne (Crataegus sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), jumpseed (Polygonum virginianum), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), bishops goutweed (Aegopodium podagraria), monkey flower (Mimulus ringens), and other species. Wetland D is dominated by a near monoculture of common reed (Phragmites australis), with sporadic occurrence of glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus), pussy willow (Salix discolor), and other species. Urban-tolerant species such as gray squirrel and red-winged blackbird make use of the onsite wetlands. However, the lack of standing water indicates that they do not provide breeding habitat for any wetland- dependent amphibian species and for most aquatic invertebrate species (dragonflies, mosquitos, etc.). WETLAND FLORA/FAUNA FUNCTIONS - Contribution of Abundance and Diversity of Wetland Vegetation –Wetland A – medium, Wetland D – low Both Wetland A and Wetland D contain non-native invasive species. However, Wetland D is much more uniformly dominated by the non-native/invasive common reed (Phragmites australis) and offers very low vegetative diversity. Wetland D does not provide significant food, forage, denning or nesting habitat for wetland-dependent wildlife. Nor are any of the species of plants identified within the either wetland uncommon or NYS-listed. - Contribution of Abundance and Diversity of Wetland Fauna – Wetland A – low, Wetland D – low As discussed above, neither Wetland A nor Wetland D retains water for sufficient periods to serve as breeding habitat for wetland-dependent amphibians or aquatic invertebrates. No amphibian egg masses or individual amphibians or other animals were identified in the wetlands during Spring/Fall 2017 site inspections. Common, urban-tolerant wildlife can be expected to frequent the wetlands. IMPACT ASSESSMENT Wetland functions in both Wetland A and Wetland D would be preserved with the Proposed Project. This is primarily a result of locating the new development areas over the areas currently developed by the office building and parking lot. Most importantly, both Wetland A and Wetland D would realize a net decrease in the amount of impervious surface within their 100-foot Village-regulated wetland buffers as compared to the current condition. Wetland A would have a 0.02 acre reduction and Wetland D would have a 0.21 acre reduction of impervious surface within their buffers. This is a substantial benefit of the 900 King Street – Wetland Functional Assessment 6.28.18 5 Proposed Project, which will allow for additional infiltration of runoff in the buffers and a reduction in surface water pollutants entering these wetlands. WETLAND A Wetland A would not be disturbed by the Proposed Project, therefore its current assemblage of trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants would remain unaffected. Native species of shrubs and trees would be installed in the buffer and upland areas proximal to Wetland A, thereby improving upon “contribution of abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation” functions. The Proposed Project would reduce the drainage area to Wetland A by approximately 1 acre, resulting in a small 10–13 percent reduction in runoff volume for the 1- or 2-year storm events. This small reduction would have minimal indirect effects to Wetland A, which would continue to receive adequate surface and groundwater inputs considering its depressional landscape position and small size. The Proposed Project’s stormwater management system would substantially reduce the influx of sediment and other pollutants to Wetland A, thereby reducing water quality stressors that can facilitate the spread of invasive species. WETLAND D Wetland D would be reconstructed and improved. Accumulated sediment and Phragmites would be removed, the basin regraded and replanted with native plant species. This would have the effect of improving its “contribution of abundance and diversity of wetland vegetation” function, which at present is adversely affected by colonization of Phragmites. Drainage inputs to Wetland D (onsite detention basin) from onsite and offsite sources would be retained, thereby sustaining the proposed revegetated and enhanced wetland. The proposed SWPPP includes the use of vegetated swales, subsurface infiltration systems, reduction in overall site imperviousness, and improvements to the existing detention basin (Wetland D). These measures will improve Wetland D’s ability to provide “modification of water quality” and “storm and floodwater storage” wetland functions and will result in a decrease in post- construction runoff rates. MITIGATION Over 1 acre of land area within the Project Site’s wetland buffers has been identified for potential restoration as part of a wetland buffer enhancement program. These areas include approximately 22,400 sf around Wetland D and approximately 14,500 sf east of Wetland A. At present, these proposed buffer planting enhancement areas are predominantly lawn. Conversion of these lawn areas to habitats dominated by native woody vegetation would substantially improve surface water infiltration, water quality improvement, and wildlife habitat. As shown in the Landscaping Plan (sheet L-100) such facultative wetland tree species as red maple (Acer rubrum), river birch (Betula nigra), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), and pin oak (Quercus palustris) are proposed for wetland buffer areas. Understory shrubs would include serviceberry (Amalanchier Canadensis), pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), red twig dogwood (Cornus sericea), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), elderberry (Sambucus racemosa), arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum), and other wetland and wetland buffer appropriate species. A final wetland buffer mitigation plan that identifies the specific areas of the Site to be restored, as well as the planting schedule and details for the restoration, would be prepared during Site Plan approval. 900 King Street – Wetland Functional Assessment 6.28.18 6