Loading...
Crispeno Arborist Report dated 5-10-12.pdfA I ��� R� ore�stry (fl Ainerican R,,)mst Manag(­n-ient, Inc. - — ---------- -- - I I'd 15 1"H Skool' h0, Kdd,--nd. VVA 'M03J t 0,15� 820 3420 & f_ax' PLP"p H'M 3T31 0 May '10", 2012 Mr. Carmen Crisperro 9812 235"' ISL SW Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Crispeno: RECEIVED MAY 7, 3 202 FjEVEU)pMFffl',9F,RVIGES Today at your request, I visited your property at the above address to evaluate the condition of four lairge fir trees that have been recently impacted related to your short -plat improvements. My assignment is to evaluate the condition and failure potential of the subject trees and to report on my findings. In addition, I am to make appropriate recommendations to abate any potential hazardous conditions that may exist. The subject trees are consiidered moderate risks. "'I"he probability of whole tree failure is Ilow. At this time it would be appropriate to retain and monitor. Whether or not the root loss and disturbance will have adverse effects on health or stability is unknown. It will likely take two to three years for outward symptoms of decline, to present themselves if the damage was compromising. My recommendation is to re-evaluate condition and failure risk in two years or sooner if outward signs of decline begin to exhibit themselves. Four trees were identified on the property that were recently impacted by improvements., These can be identified by a numbered aluminum tag attached to the lower trunk. These numbers correspond with the Tree Hazard Evaluation Forms, which, are attached and part of this report. The subject treesare Douglas -fir, a native coniferous species. Age is estimated at 90 to 100 years of age based on size and bark characteristics. The tree assessment procedure involves the examination of many factors: -rhe crown of the tree is examined for current vigor,. This is comprised of inspecting the crown (foliage, buds and branches) for color, density, form, and annual shoot growth, IfiTib dieback arid disease. For- a Forester Ever.y Day is Earth Day May 90th 2092 Page 2 The bole or main stem of the tree is inspected for decay, which includes cavities, wounds, fruiting bodies of decay (conks or mushrooms), seams, insects, bleeding, callus development, broken or dead tops, structural defects and unnatural leans. Structural defects include crooks, forks with V-shaped crotches, multiple attachments, and excessive sweep. The root collar and roots are inspected for the presence of decay, insects and/or damage, as well as if they have been injured, undermined or exposed, or original grade has been altered. Inspection methods included examining the tree with binoculars and sounding the lower trunks with a mallet. No invasive measures were used to assess tree conditions. Findings Trees #101, #102 and #103 exist as a small grouping at the top of the slope. Approximately two weeks ago, a sewer trench was excavated between trees 4101 and #102. The trench was centered between the trees and cut surface roots to within four feet of both of the trunks. The depth of the trench is unknown. All three of these appear to have been in good condition prior to the disturbance. The crowns are displaying healthy foliage of excellent color and density. The lower trunks appear sound, although a thorough inspection was not possible due to the amount of English ivy on the lower trunks. All three were topped several years ago at approximately 55' to 60' above ground. Regenerated leaders or tops appear soundly attached. Tree #104 is situated near the access drive. The roots on the southwest and west sides of the tree have been recently disturbed for road and utility work. It appears the grade was lowered, removing approximately 30% of the fine absorbing root mass. The foliage appears a little off color and thinner than normal. Significant limb tip dieback can be observed on all sides of the canopy. The lower trunk appears sound. No outward evidence of internal decay was identified. Discussion The probability of whole tree failure related to the recent root disturbance is low. All of the subject trees appear structurally stable at this time. There is no evidence of internal stem decay or the presence of decay associated with root rotting pathogens. Trees have good height to diameter ratios, with trunks that are well tapered and structurally sound. Whether or not the root loss and disturbance will result in long-term decline is unknown. It will likely take two to three years for outward symptoms of decline to exhibit. In my opinion the degree of root loss on trees #101, 4102 and #104 was significant and will result in some degree of decline, stress and loss of vigor. The root loss and damage was not to a degree that has compromised structural stability. It appears the crown of Tree #104 may have been "wind -sailed" in the past. This is a pruning practice that removes laterals in the crown to allow the wind to pass through more easily thus reducing the risk of stem breakage or wind -throw. This pruning may be associated with the decline and lack of overall vigor. "Wind -sailing" removes too much live INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY CONSULTANTS, INC. May 10,"', 2012 Rage 3 foliage at one time which stresses -the tree and shifts biological functions, ultimately placing the tree in a state of shock. They don't seem to ever -fully recover after this type of pruning is done. Skunrn ly The subject ject trees are considered moderate risks. The probability of whole tree failure is low, At this time it would be appropriate to retain and monitor. It will take some time to determine whether or not the recent disturbance will have long-terr'n adverse effects on tree health and stability. This species is quite tolerant. of root disturbance, so long as thresholds have not been exceeded. Trees 101, #102 and #1 O3 appear quite vigorous and may have enough reserves to ward off disease or insect infestations associated with the disturbance. Tree 11104 is of most concern, given the amount of firrib tip dieback and lack of vigorous foliage. My recommendation is to re-evaluate condition and failure risk in two years or sooner if OUtWard signs of decline begin to exhibit themselves. There is no warranty suggested for any of the trees subject to this report. Weather, latent tree conditions, and future man -caused activities could cause physiologic changes and deteriorating tree condition. Over time, deteriorating tree conditions may appear and there may be conditions, which are not now visible which, could cause tree failure. This report orthe verbal comments made at the site in no way warrant the structural stability or long ten -n condition of any tree, but represent my opinion based or) the observations made. Nearly a// trees in any condition standing within reach of improvements or human use areas represent hazards that could lead to damage or injury. Please call if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Bob Layton, Senior Arborist ISA Certified Arborist #PN -2714A Certified Tree Risk Assessor #233 INTERNA'21011AL FORESTRY CONSULTANTS, INC, May '10"', 2012 Page 4 Ulpper crowns -excel lent foliage color and density INTERNATTQNI�E, FORESTRY CONS,'ULTANTS, INC, May I Ot", 2012 Page 5 ("" rnwn int rine nf V1 0 1 vi n2 -,arid o i nn INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY CONSULTANTS, TNC. May 10"', 2012 Page 6 C rown, of Tree # 104 Lower crown of Tree #104 INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY CONSULTANTS, INC, Site/Address:' fia 2-3.15-- Map/Location: 3, Map/Location: Owner: public private unknown other Date: ' : - Inspector: V 7'7> P� - x Date of last Inspection: _ /l111t HAZARD RAYING: ❑ chlorotic 7_ / Growth obstructions: + + e ❑ sparse Failure + Size + Target e Hazard potential of part Rating hating Immediate action needed Woundwood development: Needs further inspection CD/averageE3poor ❑ none Dead tree Vigor class: ❑ excellent Tree d: /D I Species: /.?y:.6.1.,: a J,4�.v:., — � ; m•.. r'� DBH: f of trunks: / PBeight:/�? Spread: ' Form: 13/generally symmetric C minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag -headed Crown class: ❑ dominant Cfco-dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed Live crown ratio: -7 S" % Age class.- ❑ young ❑ semi -mature Eg/� ature ❑ over-mature/senescent r Pruning history: ❑ crown cleaned :❑ excessively thinned ❑ topped drown raised ❑ pollarded ❑ crown reduced of lush cuts C cabled/braced ❑ none ❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: ❑ specimen ❑ heritage/historic ❑ wildlife C unusual ❑ street tree ❑ screen C shade Indigenous C protected by gov. agency 3;� Foliage color: [9 normal ❑ chlorotic ❑ necrotic Epieerrnics? Y Growth obstructions: Foliage density: CSI normal ❑ sparse Leat size: C,"normaI ❑ small ❑ stakes ❑ wire/ties ❑ signs ❑ cables Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent C�`average ❑ poor Twig Uieback? Y ❑ curb/pavement ❑ guards Woundwood development: [I excellent CD/averageE3poor ❑ none I]other Vigor class: ❑ excellent 0 average ❑ fair ❑ poor Major pests/diseases: D Fy, SITE CONDITIONS Site Character: ifresidence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park ❑ open space ❑ natural ❑ woodlandVorest Landscape type: ❑ parkway ❑ raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound ❑ lawn Q'shrub border ❑ wind break Irrigation: Ionone El adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wettled �* Recent site disturbance? N G construction C'soil disturbance 13 grade change El line clearing L site clearing % dripline paved: "l7° 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N °I° dripiine w/ till sail: °/a -' 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100°/° �� a+•e f % dripiine grade lowered: 0%i0 5°! 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Soll problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted ❑ droughty ❑ saline ❑ alkaline ❑ acidic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center ❑ history of fail ❑ clay ❑ expansive ❑ slope ° aspect: Obstructions: ❑ lights ❑ signage D line -of -sight, ❑ view ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. r Exposure to wind; ❑ single tree C below canopy u above canopy ❑ recently exposed I ,t��windward. canopy edge El area prone to windth row .. Prevailing wind direction: �,J Occurrence of snow/ice storms ❑ never B'seldom ❑ regularly TARGET Use tinder Tree: Iffbuilding Dv$arking C traffic ❑ pedestrian ❑ recreation ❑landscape ❑'�ardscape C small features 7 utility lines Can target be moved? Y 6) can use be restricted? Y * Occupancy: ❑ occasional use C intermittent use `frequent use G constant use The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. THEE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS.- Suspect EFECTS.Suspect rant r®t: Y �V Mush MGM/conkthraeftet present: Y 4') BU: _ � Exposed rants: ❑ severe ❑`moderate ❑ low Undermined: ❑ severe L� moderate ❑ low Foot pruRad: � distance from trunk Root as@a affected: 3,9 % Rultress woanded: Y 0V when: /Z Restricted VOW area: ❑ severe ❑ moderate Efl`ow Potential for fool Callum: ❑ severe ❑ moderate lbw LEAN. - deg, from vertical ❑ natural ❑ unnatural ❑ self -corrected Soil heaving: Y N Decay in piano of lean: Y N Rants broken Y N Soil craeking: Y N Compounding factors: mean severity: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low CRDWN DETECTS. Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severitv (s = severe, m moderate. l = low) DEFECT ROUT CROWD TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor to er Bow'sweep Cadominants/forks Multiple attachments J Included baric / Excessive end wet ht cracks/splits Nan ors Girdling Wounds/seam Decay Cavity Conks/mush rooms/bracket Bleeding/sap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/termites/ants Gankers/ alts/burls Previous failure Tree part most likely to fail:! flr Failure potential: 1- low; 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - severe Inspection period: AIA- annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 em); 2 - 6-13" (15-45 cm): Failure Potential ¢ Size of Part ¢ Target Rating = Hazard Rating 3 -18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 ->30' (75 cm) ¢ ¢ _ Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; 3 - frequent use; 4 -constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: ❑ remove defective part ❑ reduce end weight ❑ crown clean ❑ thin ❑ raise canopy ❑ crown reduce ❑ restructure ❑ shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further: ❑ root crown ❑ decay ❑ aerial ❑ monitor Remove tree: Y t> Replace? Y N dove target: Y N Other: Effect on adjacent trees: ❑ none Q evaluate Notification: 2 -owner ❑ manager ❑ governing agency Date:. COMMENTS �;1N. `� ,-' _. t `�'. '�� �- `�,S , .!-•; �t�e''-:��a-elf f. �,� � � �a� 3�� gip. ill � .: f f�,., tli � r ., �➢� _� � , ��� Site/Address: Map/Location: Owner: public private — unknown other Date: 5—h } // Inspector. Date of last inspection: HAZARD RATING: Failure + Size + Target _ Ha rd Potential of part Rating Rating Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead tree Tree d: species: '�2" 6. -, /4--f DDH:/ # of trunks: l Height: /' /c9 Spread: 7 111 Form; Bs generally symmetric C minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag headed Crown class: ❑ dominant ID co -dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed Live crown ratio: a .-0 n % Age class: ❑ young ❑ semi -mature 2.�/�m 9 Y 9 2/mature ❑over-rnaturelsenescent Pruning history: ❑ crown cleaned :] excessively thinned ❑ topped Cacrown raised ❑ pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts C' cahled/braced ❑ none ❑ multiple pruning events Approxi dates: Special Vafue: ❑ specimen ❑ heritage/historic ❑ wildlife I-• unusual ❑ street tree ❑ screen ❑ shade 2 indigenous C protected by gov. agency Foliage color: normal ❑ chlorotic ❑ necrotic Epicormics? Y Growth obstructions: Foliage density: 2"normal ❑ sparse Leaf size: IW-- normal ❑ small [I stakes ❑ wire/ties ❑ signs ❑ cables Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent 12 /average ❑ poor Twig Diebaek? Y 60 ❑ curb/pavement ❑ guards woundwood development: IEaverage ❑ poor ❑ none ❑ other Vigor class: ❑ excellent �❑�excellent LT average ❑ fair ❑ poor Major pests/diseases: ��� �� � �a � �'� �Fw, E v F Site Character: L residence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park Do pen space ❑ natural ❑ woodlandVorest Landscape type: ❑ parkway ❑ raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound ❑ lawn &�hrub border ❑ wind break Irrigation: Bone ❑ adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? (9 N r construction ❑ soil disturbance ❑ grade change ❑ line clearing ❑ site clearing % dripfine paved: , 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N % dripfine w/ fill soil: 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% °/°dripfine grade lowered: 0°/0 1fT 2 .°I;° 25-50% 50-75% 75100% 4, =P.& `s' Soil problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted ❑ droughty ❑ saline ❑ alkaline ❑ acidic 0 small volume ❑disease center ❑ history of fail ❑ clay ❑ expansive ❑ slope aspect: Obstructions: ❑ lights ❑ signage ❑ line -of -sight E❑ view ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. Exposure to wind: ❑ single tree ❑ below canopy C above canopy ❑ recently exposed ETOW'lndward, canopy edge ❑ area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: 5'k Occurrence of snow/ice storms ❑ never E34seidom ❑ regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: wilding Lacking affic ❑ pedestrian ❑ recreation O ndscape 21ardscape ❑ small features Eutility lines Can target be moved? Y 6'p Can use be restricted? Y frt, Occupancy: ❑ occasional use G intermittent use FJ frequent use ❑ constant use The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclus€ons or recommendations derived from use of this form. TREE DEFECTS ROOT REFECTS.° Suspect root rot: Y ,•i(. Mushmon, racket present: Y fi , tO: Exposed roots: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low Urtdenalined: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low Root pruned: distance from trunk Root arca affected: ?d % f ut�ress woe�r�ded: Y P when: Restricled root area: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑'Iaw Potential for root failure: ❑ severe ❑ moderate 21-0-W LEAN., 0 deg. from vertical ❑ natural ❑ unnatural ❑ self -corrected Soil heaviog: Y N Decay in plane of lean: Y N Rots broken Y N Suit cracking: Y N Compounding factors-. Lean severity: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low CROW DEFECTS. Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate. I = lowf DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor to er Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm); 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm); Bow, sweep 3 -18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30' (75 cm) Codominants/forks Target rating: 1 - occasional use: 2 intermittent use; Multiple attachments 3 - frequent use; 4 - constant use Included bark Excessive end weight Cable/Brace: -Cracks lsplits Hangers Girdlin Wounds/seam -. Deco Cavity Conks/mushrooms/bracket Bleeding/sap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/termites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure Tree part most likely to fail: ' A ; "'/ V e -e J,"' Failure potential: 1 - low; 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - severe Inspection period: _y�# annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm); 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Bating 3 -18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30' (75 cm) + Target rating: 1 - occasional use: 2 intermittent use; 3 - frequent use; 4 - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: ❑ remove defective part ❑ reduce end weight ❑ crown clean ❑ thin ❑ raise canopy ❑ crown reduce ❑ restructure ❑ shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further: ❑ root crown ❑ decay ❑ aerial ❑ monitoi Remove tree: Y 61Replace? Y N Moue target: Y N Other: Effect on adjacent trees: ❑ none ❑ evaluate Notilication: 216wner ❑ manager ❑ governing agency Dater -. COMMENTS S �y ,.I�.�" ^Fr"���'� ^c �' tib, rc.. <ry• ;d' d'Y -.:.� � f t• � ,P"� �F� d % Site/Address; Map/Location: Owner: public private unknown other Date: r �'y� �';! ' Inspector: f Date of last inspection:` HAZA0 RATING: ❑ chlorotic ❑ necrotic Epieormics? Y V Growth obstmetions: Failure Size target Hazard Potential of pad Rating Rating Immediate action needed 2average ❑ poor Twig ®ieback? Y Needs further inspection woundwood development: Dead tree 09/a'verage ❑ poor ❑ none Tree f¢: species: e-� 0.` .,. >. DOH: -3 # of trunks: tteighl: Spread: ° Form: l generally symmetric C minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag -headed Crown class: ❑ dominant Q eo-dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed Live crown ratio: 7 5' % lige clasp: ❑ young ❑ semi -mature 2 mature ❑ over-mature/senescent P Pruning history: ❑ crown cleaned :] excessively thinned ❑ topped 0 crown raised ❑ pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts C cabled/braced ❑ none Cl multiple pruning events Approx, dates: Special Value: ❑ specimen ❑ heritage/historic ❑ wildlife C unusual ❑ street tree ❑ screen ❑ shade indigenous C protected by gov, agency Foliage color: Llnormal ❑ chlorotic ❑ necrotic Epieormics? Y V Growth obstmetions: Faliage density: O normat ❑ sparse C�oE—)Leat size: rmal small Cl stakes ❑ wiretties ❑ signs ❑ cables Annual shoot growth: ❑ excellent 2average ❑ poor Twig ®ieback? Y ❑ curb/pavement ❑ guards woundwood development: ❑ excellent 09/a'verage ❑ poor ❑ none ❑ other Vigor class: ❑ excellent Gi6verage ❑ fair ❑ poor Major pests/diseases: /Z16 "? -e.- P 6 e. - 'Al Site Character: ID/residence ❑ commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park ❑ open space 0 natural ❑ woodlandltorest landscape type: ❑ parkway ❑ raised bed ❑ container ❑ mound ❑ lawn 9 shrub border ❑ wind break Irrigation: C3 none ❑ adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk weftled Recent site disturbance? 10 N C construction ❑ soil disturbance ❑ grade change ❑ line clearing ❑ site clearing • dripfine paved: °l 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement tilled? Y N • dripline w/ tilt soil: (7°Iti ' 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% • dripline grade lowered: 0% 0 5 - 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% SoU problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted ❑ droughty ❑ saline ❑ alkaline ❑ acidic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center ❑ history of fail ❑ clay ❑ expansive ❑ slope ° aspect: Obstructions: ❑ lights ❑ signage ❑ line -of -sight ❑ view ❑ overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑ traffic ❑ adjacent veg. Exposure to wind: ❑ single tree ❑below canopy Ltabove canopy ❑ recently exposed IE windward. canopy edge ❑ area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction., Occurrence of snow/ice storms ❑ never Bs'eldom ❑ regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: �uiidirig CYarking 7�affic ❑ pedestrian . ❑ recreation arandscape ardscape r✓ small features ^ utility lines Can target be moved? Y Can use be restricted? Y f.r Occupancy: ❑ occasional use C- intermittent use 2fr'equent use ❑ constant use The International Society of A€boriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of ibis form. TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect root rut: Y lsltroorIc®nlubracket present: Y cl"� l0: posed roots: ❑ severe ❑ moderate low Undermined: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low Ru®t peed: / 2distance from trunk Root area affected: "'40 %Buttress w®rrrtded: Y l ) ti huh .5 `- � -"W' Arco e y,._: Resumed rout area: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low potential for gaol fallume ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑ low LEAN., . '� deg. from vertical ❑ natural ❑ unnatural ❑ self -corrected Sall heau6ng: Y N Decay in plane of leant: Y N Hoots broken Y N Solt cracking: Y lel Compuuudiing factors: Lean severity: ❑ severe ❑ moderate ❑jow CROWN DEFECTS. Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severitv (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low) DEFECT ROOT CROWD TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor to er Bow.sweep Codominants/forks / Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight Cracks/s lits Flan ers Girdling Wounds_ /seam Deca Cavity Conks/mush rooms/bracket Bleeding/sap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/termites/ants Cankers) ails/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: Failure potential: i - low; 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - severe Inspection period: A/I annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6" (15 cm); 2 - 6-18" (15-45 cm); Failure Potential ¢ Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating 3 -18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; 3 - frequent use; 4 - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: ❑ remove defective part ❑ reduce end we(ght ❑ crown clean ❑ thin ❑ raise canopy ❑ crown reduce ❑ restructure ❑ shape CableiBrace: lospect further: ❑ root crown ❑ decay ❑ aerial ❑ monitoi Remove tree: Y Replace? Y N Move target: Y N other: Effect on adjacent trees: ❑ none F7 evaluate Notification: 12/owner ❑ manager ❑ governing agency Date: COMMENTS i Site/Address: a2� ,"' Map/Location: Owner: public private unknown __ . other Date: - Inspector: I r- s� , Date of last inspection: . r:,r>, ; rro r Failure Size + Target = Potential of part Rating Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead tree Hazard Rating Tree 4: /o y/ Species: 12 e2 41W 1 Y ` DR": 17 _ # of trunks: Height: Ori Spread: 7— Form: Form: ❑ generally symmetric C minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag -headed Crown class: t" dominant ❑ co -dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed Live crown ratio: 62 % Age class: ❑ young ❑ semi -mature E-lAature ❑ over-mature/senescent Pruning history: ❑ crown cleaned :1 excessively thinned C topped gown raised ❑ pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts C cabled/braced Cl none ❑ multiple pruning events Approx. dates: 12 P $X,; f Special Value: ❑ specimen ❑ heritage/historic ❑ wildlife C unusual ❑ street tree ❑ screen ❑ shade 2'indigenous ❑ protected by gov, agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color: Ci normal-- Cf chlorotic ❑ necrotic Epicormfcs? S) JV Crow$h obstructions: Foliage density: El normal ❑ sparse Leaf size: ffnormal ❑ small CI stakes ❑ wire/ties ❑ signs ❑ cables Annual shoot grovah: ❑ excellent EDaverage ❑ poor Twig Ofeback? 1,D N ❑ curb/pavement ❑ guards Woundwood development: ❑ excellent ❑ average ❑ poor enone ❑ other Vigor class: ❑ excellent ❑ average CAfair ❑ poor Major pests/diseases: SITE CONDITIONS Site Character: [91e'sidence Cl commercial ❑ industrial ❑ park ❑ open space ❑ natural ❑ woodlandlfarest Landscape type: ❑ parkway wised bed ❑ container ❑ mound ❑ lawn ❑ shrub border ❑ wind break Irrigation: ❑ none ❑ adequate ❑ inadequate ❑ excessive ❑ trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? 09 N G''construction ®soil disturbance ® grade change ❑line clearing ❑ site clearing % dripline paved: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pavement lifted? Y N % dripline W/ fill soil: 0% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% % dripline grade lowered: 0% 10-25%25-5f)° 50-75% 75-100% r i Soil problems: ❑ drainage ❑ shallow ❑ compacted ❑ droughty ❑ saline ❑ alkaline ❑ acidic ❑ small volume ❑ disease center ❑ history of fail ❑ clay ❑ expansive ❑ slope ° aspect: Obstructions: ❑ fightss'� ❑ signage ❑ line -of -sight ❑ view 01 overhead lines ❑ underground utilities ❑traffic ❑ adjacent veg. ❑ Exposure to wind: 2 single tree ❑ below canopy ❑ above canopy ❑ recently exposed ❑ windward, canopy edge ❑ area prone to windth row Prevailing wind direction: _ 5� �' Occurrence of snow/ice storms ❑ never Rls�Idom ❑ regularly TARGET _ Use Under Tree: Crbuilding G'parking traffic © pedestrian ❑ recreation Ofandscape F-5hardscape ❑: small features utility lines Can target be Moved? Y N Can use he restricted,?_ �Y N ED Occupancy: ❑ occasional use C -j intermittent use frequent use Ci constant use The internationai Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. TREE DEFECTS Suspect root ret: Y Y Y W: &posed roots: ❑ severe ❑ moderate E? ow Undermined: ❑ severe ❑ moderate Glow Hoot pruned: ---LL distance from trunk R062 aria affected: '�-' % outtress wounded: Y ,lV.'' Altera: Restricted root area: ❑ severe ❑ moderate L low Votendal for aQQt fallure: ❑ severe ❑ moderate E law LEAS. ---9— deg. from vertical ❑ natural ❑ unnatural ❑ self -corrected Soil heaving: Y IV Decay in plane of lean: Y (g) Roots broken Y Soil cracking: Y jV, Compounding factors: _ . _ Lean severity: ❑ severe ❑ moderate Cow CROWN DEFECTS. Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity is = severe. m = moderate. I = low) DEFECT € OUT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor to er Failure potential: 1 - law; 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - severe Bow, sweep Size of part: 1 - <6” (15 cm); 2 - 6-18" (15-46 cm); Codominants/fonts 3 -18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm) Multiple attachments Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; Included bark 3 - frequent use; 4 - constant use Excessive end weight Cracks/splits Prune: ❑ remove defective part ❑ reduce end weight ❑ crown clean Han ers Cable/Brace: Girdling Wounds/seam Other: Deca �. cavity �✓ �� �– conks/m ushrooms/bracket Bleeding/sap flaw s �•9�%-��,.yo .e�l:,�� �. Loose/cracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Borers/termites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most„likely to fall o ti Hca r Failure potential: 1 - law; 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - severe Inspection period: AIA- annual biannual other Size of part: 1 - <6” (15 cm); 2 - 6-18" (15-46 cm); Failure Potential ¢ Size of Part ¢ Target Rating = Hazard Rating 3 -18-30" (45-75 cm); 4 - >30" (75 cm) ri Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; — 3 - frequent use; 4 - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: ❑ remove defective part ❑ reduce end weight ❑ crown clean ❑ thin ❑ raise canopy ❑ crown reduce ❑ restructure ❑ shape Cable/Brace: Inspect further: ❑ root crown ❑ decay ❑ aerial ❑ monitor Remove Iree: Y Replace? Y N Move larget: Y N Other: Effect on adjacent trees: ❑ none El evaluate Notification: E2-0-wnef ❑ manager ❑ governing agency Date: �✓ �� �– COMMENTS q x 'kn�/,. <�.. .f,-�Y 'i����h'v%4 •�- :F � �''K rd �� -:rR:(�� .w s �•9�%-��,.yo .e�l:,�� �. �- ida 0 0 0 CD 2 @ r- 11 zr 0 (D U, CA CA CD N CD v w 0) Ll (D 0 A� I Cy m fD 0 3 m (D Ln Ua ZF =l. rp :3 Lam I WILL, 11 9 RISK CATEGORIES WITHIN THE TWELVE POINT RATING SCHEME The Overall Risk Rating and Action Thresholds 13-12 p o iaW RRsk Rating Risk Category 3 Low 1 4 Low 2 5 Low 3 6 Moderate I 7 ModaraW 2 8 larder 3 9 High I High 2 I I High 3 The Table shown above outlines the interpretauoji and implications of the risk ratings and associated risk categories. This table is provided to mtDrm the reader abw these r4 categories so that they can better understand any risk abatement recommendations made in the risk assessment report.