Loading...
Derr_HazardTreeRemoval_20160526.pdfMay 26, 2016 CI"T"Y OF ED ON S 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us .M. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION Baron and Rhonda Derr 19316 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Hazard Tree Removal Dear Mr. and Mrs. Derr, The City of Edmonds has received a request to remove three trees on your property at 19316 Olympic View Drive. The three trees identified are adjacent Fruitdale Creek. Fruitdale Creek is considered a critical area pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 23.40 and 23.90. Generally the removal of trees, or any vegetation, within a critical area or critical area buffer is not an allowed activity, unless, pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.7, it involves the removal of invasive species or hazard trees. An arborist report, prepared by Jennifer Wells of Washington Tree Experts, along with ISA Tree Risk Assessment forms was submitted with the request to remove the trees. Three quaking aspen trees were evaluated. Tree #1 received an overall risk rating of "moderate", while Trees #2 and #3 received an overall risk rating of "high." Only Trees #2 and #3 qualify as hazard trees which may be removed in accordance with ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b. Tree #1 would require a permit for removal. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv each hazard tree removed must be replaced with new trees at a ratio of two to one. The arborist recommended replacing the hazard trees with vine maple and mountain hemlock. An exemption for the tree cutting is granted with the following conditions: 1. Only trees #2 and #3 identified in the arborist report may be removed under this approval. 2. Four replacement trees must be planted in the general vicinity of the removed trees. The replacement trees may be either mountain hemlock or vine maple. In accordance with ECDC 23.40.220.C.7.b.iv, mountain hemlock replacement trees must be at least six feet in height as measured from the top of the root ball and vine maple must be a minimum of one — two diameter at breast height. The replacement trees must be planted within one year of tree the tree cutting activity. 3. If the identified replacement trees cannot be found in the required size, substitute replacement trees that are native and indigenous to the area may be approved by the Planning Division. Please contact the City before substituting replacement tree species. 4. Stump of the tree cut must be left in place to provide slope stability and prevent erosion. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions at c rll.gtm9lc.� rieclrt7cralt gcr, or 425-771-0220. Siccrely, ernen Lien Senior Planner Encl: Washington Tree Experts Arborist Report and Tree Risk Assessment Forms dated May 10, 2016 Cc: Washington Tree Experts Page 1 of 5 Washington.Tree E: 9792 Edmonds Way #123 Edmonds, WA 98020 206-362-3380 wtetree@yahoo.com May 10, 2016 Client name: Baron and Rhonda Derr Street: 19316 Olympic View Dr, City, Zip: Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: 3 Quaking Aspen (Populus tremuloides) R F C ri i w�d� MAY ( 2 2016 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Assignment: Tree evaluation requested by the homeowner to attain approval for the removal of hazard trees in a critical area. Following is the city required documentation and a brief explanation of health and environment. Discussion (please reference attached photos and site maps): There are 3 Aspen trees south of the house located within close proximity to a small stream. A general note of the species is that they are fast growing which predisposes them to have weak wood and susceptible to breakage. They are relatively short lived and these trees would be considered mature in their environment. Tree 1= 12" Diameter at standard height (DSH) is growing through the deck. Tree is in decline with low vigor and limited new growth. Tree has multiple tops and decay in the main stem which increases the likelihood of failure and it has a high likelihood of affecting the house. Tree 2 = 10" DSH is growing at a lean and has a significant pocket of decay less than half way up the trunk. Tree has a high likelihood of failure. Tree 3 = 14" DSH is growing at a lean and also has multiple tops with a high likelihood of failure and a high likelihood of striking the house. Procedure: To evaluate and to prepare the report we drew upon our 15 plus years of experience in the field and our formal education in Forestry and Horticulture. We also followed the protocol of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for tree risk assessment while looking at the overall health of the trees and site conditions. Washington Tree Experts Certified Arborist Derr (Edmonds) May 10, 2016 Page 2 of 5 In examining each tree, we look at such factors as: -size -vigor -root health -crown health -deadwood and hanging branches -pest and disease While no one can predict with absolute certainty if a tree will or will not fail, we can, by using scientific process asses which of the trees is most likely to fail and take appropriate action. 3 trees will be removed to ground level. All debris removed from site because the proximity to the home. Debris left would encourage wood boring pest. The homeowner will replace the trees with 6 native trees as per city regulation. Installation of 3 Vine Maple (Acer circinatum) and 3 Mt. Hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) to be placed in the back yard. Prepared . Ma Jennifer Wells Certified Arborist #PN6209A ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Washington Tree Experts Certified Arborist. Derr (Edmonds) May 10, 2016 Page 3 of 5 Waiver of Liability This information represents the tree health assessment at this point in time. My findings do not guarantee future safety nor are they predictions of future event. Information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection. The inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. Attachments -site maps -photos Glossary ANSI A300: American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for tree care codominant stems: stems or branches of nearly equal diameter, often weakly attached (Matheny et al. 1998) crown: the aboveground portions of a tree (Lilly 2001) DBH or DSH: diameter at breast or standard height; the diameter of the trunk measured 54 inches (4.5 feet) above grade (Matheny et al. 1998) ISA: International Society of Arboriculture mitigation: process of reducing damages or risk (Lilly 2001) monitoring: keeping a close watch; performing regular checks or inspections (Lilly 2001) structural defects: flaws, decay, or other faults in the trunk, branches, or root collar of a tree. Texts M. Dirr-Manual of Woody Landscapes R. Harris, J. Clark, N. Matheny-Arboriculture Third Edition 1999 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Handbook Washington Tree Experts Certified Arborist Derr (Edmonds) May 10, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Tree T --- Tree Washington Tree Experts Certified Arborist Derr (Edmonds) May 10, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Washington Tree Experts Certified Arborist Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form, Client1 P. Ita ..�..... ._�.�..�... Time Sheet of Address Tree location / Tree no. ......... Tree species .QL\mc f 1 g `-i Crowns read �Hei ht _ p dia. _ Assessors)i� 'r y Time frame Tools rased lol f Target Assessment _.��. History of failures Topography F...l.a_.t.❑. Slope[] .. �... � m 5 .A.spe..ctSite changes None 13 Grade change Site clearing Changed soil hydrologyogy Root cuts oscribe Soil conditions volume ❑ Saturated 11 Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over rots ❑ -% DescribePrevailingwind direction Common .._.._.. ^ ..... _ . her Stro�gwi � ❑ e ❑Snow❑ Heavy rain Describe � ..�mm Teewinds � wv v _.�.,.a Vigor Low Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ ..-.�.. ..W-�...�.. .._._...._...._.o..n,.ve- ..( .d -.e. _a-dj. _..❑ .._.N, ormmal�Chlorotic _l C h...loroti c � w_ N.- ecrotic . ,..56Pests Abiotic Species failure role Branches TrunkRoots Describe �1 mom..... _d Loa Factors unneling❑dWmdexposure ProtectePartial ❑ Full❑ Windf. Relative crown size Small Medium ❑ Crown Large❑ density Sparse chi � n loadNorm ense❑ Interior branches Few IA Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent ..........• _...... ......u_m .w_m Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Crown r s Unbalanced twigs/bra ches ❑ LCR % overall "4' DeadCracks Lightning damage IJall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark 13Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. over-extended branches ❑ Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nesthole_%circ. Pruning history Previous branch failures ❑ _ w Similar branches present ❑ Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other " ...._r_.. .- Response growth Mainconcern(s)�_....__. Likelihood of failure Improbable ElPossible [IProbable ❑ Imminent Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor 13 Moderate 11 Significant ❑ —Trunk— Roots and Root Collar Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/713Dead llar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems Included bark ❑ Cr ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood Marriage/decay ❑ Canke i s/Ga Us/Bawds ❑ Sap oze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Lightningalamage❑ Heartwood decay Corks/MushrOorns❑ Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth Poor taper Cracks 13 Cut/Dam aged roots 13Distance from trunk Lean °Corrected? Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness El Response growth •, Response growth Main concern(s) _ . ,,,, �mITp IT Main concern(s) �._.�. _• _w Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate*� � / /Significant ❑ Likelihood defect failure A ❑ ._ ....._ to 0 Si g Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probabfex' Imminent ❑ Improbable 13 Possible 0 Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ _ Page I of 2 Target zone m a v � E c occupancy n d p... 7 c Target description N1—rare rate ® c o 2. c x j? 2 occasional 9—frequentW "� S +`r 1 Y" '`1 wt 12 4 -constant E a 2 3 4 _.��. History of failures Topography F...l.a_.t.❑. Slope[] .. �... � m 5 .A.spe..ctSite changes None 13 Grade change Site clearing Changed soil hydrologyogy Root cuts oscribe Soil conditions volume ❑ Saturated 11 Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over rots ❑ -% DescribePrevailingwind direction Common .._.._.. ^ ..... _ . her Stro�gwi � ❑ e ❑Snow❑ Heavy rain Describe � ..�mm Teewinds � wv v _.�.,.a Vigor Low Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ ..-.�.. ..W-�...�.. .._._...._...._.o..n,.ve- ..( .d -.e. _a-dj. _..❑ .._.N, ormmal�Chlorotic _l C h...loroti c � w_ N.- ecrotic . ,..56Pests Abiotic Species failure role Branches TrunkRoots Describe �1 mom..... _d Loa Factors unneling❑dWmdexposure ProtectePartial ❑ Full❑ Windf. Relative crown size Small Medium ❑ Crown Large❑ density Sparse chi � n loadNorm ense❑ Interior branches Few IA Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent ..........• _...... ......u_m .w_m Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Crown r s Unbalanced twigs/bra ches ❑ LCR % overall "4' DeadCracks Lightning damage IJall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark 13Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. over-extended branches ❑ Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nesthole_%circ. Pruning history Previous branch failures ❑ _ w Similar branches present ❑ Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other " ...._r_.. .- Response growth Mainconcern(s)�_....__. Likelihood of failure Improbable ElPossible [IProbable ❑ Imminent Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor 13 Moderate 11 Significant ❑ —Trunk— Roots and Root Collar Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/713Dead llar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems Included bark ❑ Cr ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood Marriage/decay ❑ Canke i s/Ga Us/Bawds ❑ Sap oze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Lightningalamage❑ Heartwood decay Corks/MushrOorns❑ Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth Poor taper Cracks 13 Cut/Dam aged roots 13Distance from trunk Lean °Corrected? Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness El Response growth •, Response growth Main concern(s) _ . ,,,, �mITp IT Main concern(s) �._.�. _• _w Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate*� � / /Significant ❑ Likelihood defect failure A ❑ ._ ....._ to 0 Si g Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probabfex' Imminent ❑ Improbable 13 Possible 0 Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ _ Page I of 2 Risk Categorization Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood Likelihood of Impacting Target of Failure �........ _� w....W_ �... ... Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely._ �. _. Moderate Possible _s Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely ...a Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Moderate Matrix2. Risk rating matrix p descriptions ,.. W Notes, explanations, tl Likelihood of Consequences of Failure Failure & Impact `"" ,.._„�. ..m.� P� Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Ni jrrth Mitigation options��b� Residual risk Residual risk _._.�mm.._....._._�_�..._. mm_._�....._.. _ ...._ Residual risk g�_�.W_w IT2 3�.. Residual risk Overall tree risk ratingLow ❑ Moderate Hi h ❑ Extreme ory riri 4^^^mWmITWN 13 Overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme 13 Recommended inspection interval Data Final 13 Preliminary Advanced assessment needed 0No Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe. mm. Tans d at.asheeC seas prandaxed by the InteiAmU aml Sod 0.y cA /'ne�IScaxiiculwye (ISA) and as inaP:cndcd ffm aase by'Free Risk Amessnuaemit Qu -,A Ii.ed (TRAQ) arrll nH,,ts 2017 Page 2 of 2 Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Loam Low Low Low e p descriptions ,.. W Notes, explanations, tl Likelihood of Consequences of Failure Failure & Impact `"" ,.._„�. ..m.� P� Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Ni jrrth Mitigation options��b� Residual risk Residual risk _._.�mm.._....._._�_�..._. mm_._�....._.. _ ...._ Residual risk g�_�.W_w IT2 3�.. Residual risk Overall tree risk ratingLow ❑ Moderate Hi h ❑ Extreme ory riri 4^^^mWmITWN 13 Overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme 13 Recommended inspection interval Data Final 13 Preliminary Advanced assessment needed 0No Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe. mm. Tans d at.asheeC seas prandaxed by the InteiAmU aml Sod 0.y cA /'ne�IScaxiiculwye (ISA) and as inaP:cndcd ffm aase by'Free Risk Amessnuaemit Qu -,A Ii.ed (TRAQ) arrll nH,,ts 2017 Page 2 of 2 ■ Client ISA, Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Date Time Address/Tree location on . .... . ..... . ........ —,,..--.--Tree no Sheet Tree species. C h 7r of— 'ISL U Crown spread dia, Assessor(s) Height­5,Q_�.­ Time frame_ — Tools Target Assessment getzone .0Occupaincy n. LID S rate X N Target description A y X 2 -occasional -U Y U 3 - frequent V u! 4 - constant >E —Ele C, 2 > LL H � 3 4 ...... . . .... . . .... . . .... Site Factors History of failures Topography Flat[] Slope[] _Y6 Aspect_ Site changes None ❑13 Grade change [I Site clearing 0 Changed soil hydrology 0 Root cuts 11 Describe Soilconditions Limi Led volume t4 Saturated [I ShallowD Com pacted O Pavement over roots 0 % Describe Prevailing wind direction,. Common weather Strong winds R Ice 0 Snow X Heavy rain K Describe - — ------ . ...... ­- Tree Health and Species Profile — -- – - ----- . . ........ . .............. Vigor Lo... Normal 0 High 0 Foliage None (seasonal) 0 None dead Normal % Chlorotic PestsAblotic 9/. NecroticYC Species failure profile Branches'4 Trunk Roots Describe ­—, Load Factors Windexposure Protectedill PartialO Full[] Windfunru0ijjg[J­-- Relative crown size Small Medium Larg e 0 Crowndensity Sparse -Ck Normal[] DenseO Interior branches Few PkNoi,mal [-J OenseLl Vines/ istletoe/ Moss 0 Recent or planned change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Crown and Branches I Unbalanced crown LCR,bL Cracks 0 Lightning damage 0 Dead twig�,-Wbranches 01 %overall Max. dia. Codominant Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weak att — -- ------- - . w. ..... Included bark U Over-extended branches 0— achments Cavity/Nest hole% circ. Pruning history Previous branch failures 0 — - — ­- - u—, Similar branches present 11 Crown cleaned 0 Thinned 0 Raised 0 Dead/Missing bark 0 Cankers/Galls/Burls 13 Sapwood damage/decay U Reduced 0 Topped 0 Lion -tailed 0 Conks[] Heartwood decay [I Flush cuts 0 U -WI -h Other ­­­­­ Response growfl, Main concern(s) Vt V2 —­....­... Load an defect N/A 0 Minor 11 Moderate [I Likelihood of failure Improbable 0 Possible 0 Probable X Imminent 0 —Trunk— Roots and Root Collar Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/colorK Collar buried/Not visible 0 Depth_ Stem girdling 0 Codominant stems [3 Included bark 0 Cracks 0 Dead 11 Decay 0 Conks/Mushrooms 11 90 Sar)woud damage /decay 0 11 sap 0()Ze 0 Ooze 13 Cavity 11 % circ. Ughtningdamage O Heartwood deca /Mu shrootns 11 f — Cavily/Neat hoIe_ -%circ. Depth Y*kConksPoor taper 0 Cracks 0 Cut/Damaged roots 11 Distance from trunk Lean—Corrected? Root plate lifting 0 Soil weakness 0 Response growth Response growth Main concern(s) Main concern(s) ZI — Load on defect N/A 0 Minor 13 Moderate 0 Significant)( Load an defect N/Amm�0 Minor mmW0 Moderate 0 Signif• icant 0 Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable D Possible 0 Probable Imminent 0 A Improbable 13 Possible 13 Probable El Imminent 103 Page I of 2 is Categorization Likelihood .0 U Failure Impact Failure &lmpact Consequences E (from matrix i) 41 Risk U rating V B E Conditions J 2 C .2 S t Target 2 2 of part I I I CL M I L9 Tree part of concern M M E LL protection (from 0 1 , tA in Matrix 2) 0 0 ............. .. 2 QQ 0 0 3 01 1-- 00 0' Q 4 01 Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood Likelihood of Impacting Target ike'ih nod Low M ec ,7 - Ly at, likely w L'k of Failure r Very low High of Failure alum I'm ne t I minen Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very 4 l I S Probable Urflikely Unh;kely Somewhat iikefy Likely 0�7 .iy Somewhat 'si Possible U I'k i Ik hat likely i eiy w 'F JillJmprobable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikefy Mafr&2. Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Consequences of Failure Failure & Impact --J iegligib.fe Minor Significant Severe Very Extreme likely Low Moderate High Likely Low — Moderate High High Somewhat likely I ­ – -- —, . ..... Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Notes, explanations, descriptions Mitigation options . . . ..... Residual risk Residual risk . . .... Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low 11 Moderate 0 High)( Extreme 11 Work priority 10 2 11 3 IJ 4 0 Overall residual risk Low 0 Moderate 0 High 0 Extreme [I Recommended inspection interval Data DFinal []Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ONo ElYes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations []None IVisibility OAccess OVines ORoot collar buried Describe I'his ddra&hs(-A was pr.vdtaced by flic [nterinaianaR Socu��.y of Arhosiculuire (B A) and usintcindcdfior usc, byTrev Risk Asg.,ssnient Qualified ('FRAQ) azbodsLs 2013 Page 2 of 2 ISA, Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form, Client Address/Tree location Time Tree species 7— Tree no. Sheet Of __A,�:j­' __ Height Crown spread dia:, Assessor(s) Time frameTools used _—LC Target Assessment URX�- History of failures ....... . . . . ...... Topography FlatO SlopeO —5/8 Aspect_ Sitechanges None[J Gradechangell SiteclearingO Changed soil hydrology[] Rootcuts[] Describe Soil conditions Limited volume[3 Saturatecl�4 ShallowlZI CompactedO Pavement over rootsEl_% Describe_ Prevailing wind direction !S— Common weather Strong winds 0 Ice 0 Snow 0 Heavy rain 0 Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Normal . . ..... . ...... None (seasonal) 0 Noneea)% (dead] — ------ ­ -- Vigor Low �( Normal 0 High 0 Foliage Non Chlorotic % Necrotic Pests Abiotic Species failure profile Branches Trunk �( Roots Int s< LoadFactors Full Wind funneling[]-.__ . ..... Relative crown size Small 0 Me Crowndensity Sparse0 Normal Dense Medium LargeD Wind emposure Protected 13 Partia Recent or planned change in load factors Interior branches Few 0 Normallo Dense 0 Vines/Mistletoe/Moss 0 M 77 Crown and Branches Unbalanced crown K LCR % -U_Q - Dead twigs/branches ❑0 —% overall Max. dia. Cracks 0 _ Lightning damage 0 . .. .... Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Codominant Included bark 0 A Weak Over-extended branches A attachments Cavity/Nest hole Vo circ, Pruning history Previous branch failures ❑0 — — ­- - Similar branches present 0 Crown cleaned 0 Thinned 0 Raised 0 Dead/Missing bark 0 Cankers/Galls/Burls 0 Sapwood damage/decay [J Reduced 0 Topped [J Lion -tailed 0 Conks 0 Heartwood decay 0 Flush cuts 0 Response growth Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A 0 Minor 0 Moderate 0 Significant 0" Likelihood of failure Improbable 0 Possible El Probable ED Imminent 0 —Trunk— 1) Dead/Missing bark 0 Abnormal bark texture/color 0 — Roots and Root Collar — C, Codominant Collar buried/Not visible 0 Depth Stem glirdlingE3 stems Included bark 0 Cracks 0 S ET Sapwood damage/decay 0 Cankers/Galls/Burls 0 Dead 0 Decay 0 Conks/Mushrooms D Sap ooze 0 il Lightning damage 0 Heartwood decay 0 Conks/Mushrooms 0 0., Ooze 0 Cavity 0 —❑ % circ. -'avRy/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper El Cracks 11 Cut/Damaged roots 11 Distance from trunk *4 - LauCorrected? Root plate lifting [3 Soil weakness Ej Response growth Main cIncern(s) Response growth Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A 0 Minor 0 Moderate 0 Significant 0 Likelihood of failure Load on defect N/A[3 Minor[J ModeratelZI Significant[3 Improbable[] Possible 13 Probable 0 Imminent 0 A Likelihood of failure / 1\ �Improbablell Possible 0 Probable E3 Imminent 0 Page I of 2 Risk Categorization a Matrix I. Likelihood matrix. Matrix2. Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Consequences of Failure Likelihood Failure I pact �.._--2m �--_ Negligible �.� Minor .m..e_.., Significant7Ee e Very likely Law Moderate c e Likely Low u High High _� Failure Low �. Moderate Impact Unlikely Failure (from Low & Impact Matrix Consequences 1) o C Conditions w Target o a - ro "__ y - Risk rating of art Tree part of concern a 'u° protection E a 5 m _ ® J > z e m (from I • in tn Matrix 2) 1 , ° �y i Z 01 �.__ Q0 Matrix I. Likelihood matrix. Matrix2. Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Consequences of Failure Failure I pact �.._--2m �--_ Negligible �.� Minor .m..e_.., Significant7Ee e Very likely Law Moderate --�._ High e Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low ,._ Low �. Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low ..... Low Low Notes, explanations, descriptions Mitigation options _..... ..... ....._.._.......�__ �... _... Residual risk ...._.__. __...._... m_..... ....._.�...._._.. Residual risk -....... .._...�.� _.�a. _ �mm�_.�....�IT...._ Residual risk ..... .___..._......... Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low Moderate 0 High Extreme 0 Work priority 1 ❑ z ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ Overall residual risk Low 0 Moderate 0 High ❑ Extreme 0 Recommended inspection interval Data ❑ Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ONO ❑Yes-Type/Reason _ Inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe Q �IA.S r�x1;1,4k1.r6 V. was 1'Yrochued by 0.11m' 1nrdrll➢r.%QII¢linall S¢PdellY of ArburllQ u ur1 (TSA) and k kil:onPllded im use by l ren 1%UA s G,,&srnc.n1 Qudilplll'7.ed (TRAQ ) i3R"beDll'! ms ....2013 Page 2 of 2