The URL can be used to link to this page

Hazard Tree Removal STF20190021.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 - Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION August 27, 2019 Sabina Norton 812 Carey Road Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Hazard Tree Removal Dear Ms. Norton, We have spoke previously about hazard trees on your property at 812 Carey road and last week an arborist report by Seattle Arboricultural Associates dated April 6, 2019 was dropped off at the City of Edmonds recently. As you are aware, the property at 812 Cary Road contains Shell Creek and a wetland that extends along the creek. These are considered critical areas pursuant to Chapters 23.40. 23.50, and 23.90 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). 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.8, it involves the removal of invasive species or hazard trees. The arborist report prepared by John Hushagen of Seattle Arboricultural Associates identified 13 trees that pose a moderate to high risk of whole tree failure. In order to fall under the hazard tree provisions of ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b a tree must be determined to be a high risk by a certified arborist. A site plan submit with the April 6, 2019 arborist report identified trees number 1, 9, 10, 11 and 13 and associated ISA Tree Risk assessment forms identified these trees as either high or extreme risk. Pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv each hazard tree removed within a critical area or critical area buffer must be replaced with new trees at a ratio of two to one. It has been indicated that you propose to replace each tree removed with three western red cedar trees. An exemption for the tree cutting is granted with the following conditions: 1. This approval only pertains to the trees 1, 9, 10, 11 and 13 identified as high or extreme risk by Seattle Arboricultural Associates. Tree Number 13 is located outside of the critical area and critical area buffers and is not require to be replaced. A minimum of eight replacement trees must be planted in the general vicinity of the removed trees. The replacement trees must be native and indigenous in accordance with ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b.iv. Evergreen replacement trees must be at least six feet in height as measured from the top of the root ball and deciduous trees must be a minimum of one —two inches diameter at breast height. The proposed replacement trees of western red cedar are appropriate replacement tree species. Alternative species must be approved by the City of Edmonds. 3. Stumps of the tree cut must be left in place to prevent erosion. 4. Replacement trees must be planted within one year of removal of the hazard trees. Please notify the City once the replacement trees have been replanted for an inspection. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions at kernen.lien @edinondswa.gov, or 425-771-0220. Si cerely, ernen Lien J Environmental Programs Manager Encl: Seattle Arboricultural Associates report dated April 6, 2019 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Forms Site Plan Cover letter 812 Cary Road Hazardous Tree Removal in Critical Area Proposal We have multiple end of life alder trees in a critical area on our property that have been reviewed by a certified arborist and found to be an imminent danger of failing and because of their proximity to our neighbors homes on Cary Road and Sailor Lane, a hazard. We want to cut down these trees and replace them with Red Western Cedar trees that are a better native species for the conditions in this critical area. These new trees will be minimally 6 ft tall and we will place them as closely as possible to where we cut down the existing trees. The ratio would be 3 cedars for each alder. Please see site map for approximate location of trees along with photos. This is a densly wooded area and sadly we will likely continue to see these alder trees fail as most have reached their end of life. For now we want to remove the trees that are a danger to our neighbors and could actually cause even more trees to fall if they hit others in their falling during a winter storm. Attached are photos of the trees as well as the arborists report plus individual tree reports. Tree #1 Tree 9&10 Tree 13 Tree 11 w V) April 6, 2019 Ms. Sabrina Norton 812 Carey Rd. Edmonds, Wa. 98020 POOR/C'i, 'ISSOCI P,SF,� 1AG r— RECEIVED AUG 19 2019 DEVELOPMENT TEA RVICIES ASSIGNMENT Travel to above site and perform a health and risk assessment of Red Alder, (Alnus rubra), trees in a wetland area, and a Pacific Silver Fir, (Abies amabilis), near the south property line. This report is a summary my findings with recommendations. ASSESSMENT METHODS This study is called and limited to a Level 1 Visual Inspection. This means that the assessment is based on what I can see from the ground with no drilling to test for trunk decay, no root zone excavation, or climbing to inspect the leaf canopy. I began the study near the north end of the large alder grove located in a designated wetland area on the east side of the property. In this health and risk assessment I first observed the tree's physiology, e.g.; how well the tree appears to be growing, and looking for indications of dieback in the top of the developing leaf canopy. I then looked for indicators of stem decay such as obvious hollow areas on the trunk or at the base of the tree, and decomposing adjacent stumps that serve as entry points for trunk rot fungi. Finally, I analyzed the value of the target that the whole tree or its parts would strike if they were to fail. When I found a tree that I believed was a high failure risk, for all or some of the above criteria, I measured its trunk diameter at 4.5'—a point commonly known as Diameter Breast Height, (DBH). I tagged and numbered 12 alder trees and one Pacific silver fir tree that I believe pose a moderate to high risk of whole tree failure. Each tree is marked with a strip of orange ribbon on the south side of the lower trunk. For further documentation, I completed the enclosed ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form for each marked tree. Alder tree #10, with a severe stem crack, failed on April 5, 2019, during a sudden wind squall. TREES RECOMMENDED FOR REMOVAL TREE #1 is a 28" alder near the north property line. The tree leans heavily to the north and I suspect there is trunk decay present. The targets are the neighbor's fence and house. TREE #2 is an 18" alder located 20' southeast of tree #1. This tree leans heavily to the north and I believe the stem is decayed. The targets are the neighbor's fence and house. 18032 17th kvt-NW • Shoreline, Washington 98177 • (206) 510-4107 • hushagenjohnd@gmail.com Member International Soc tty of Arboriculture (ISA) • ISA Certified Arborist, PN-0108A TREE #3 is a 19" alder located 6' southwest of tree #1. The top of the canopy shows significant dieback and the tree leans heavily to the northwest over the owners' landscape and the neighbor's house. TREE #4 is a 22„ alder growing from the same root system as tree #3. Canopy dieback is severe. TREE #5 is an 18" alder located south of trees #3 and #4. The tree has severe canopy dieback in the top as well as lower stem decay. It has a heavy north lean toward the neighbor's house. TREE #6 is a 17" alder located midway in the grove from north to south. I suspect trunk decay is present and the target is the owner's landscape. TREE #7 is a 17" alder that grows from the same root system as tree #6. i believe there is decay in the lower trunk. TREE #8 is a 23" alder with probable trunk decay. The targets are the owners' landscape and a picnic area. TREE #9 is a 23" alder that has already partially failed from a severe trunk crack. TREE #10 is a 4." alder with a severe stem crack that had partially failed in winter 2019, and fell to the ground during a sudden wind event on April 5, 2019. TREE #11 is an 11" alder that is partially uprooted and is leaning into tree #9. TREE #12 is a 21" alder at the south end of the site with a heavy lean to the southwest toward the neighbor's house. I believe there is decay in the lower trunk. TREE #13 is a 45" Pacific silver fir growing near west of the wetland area near the south property line. The tree's canopy is approximately 85% dead. SUMMARY COMMENTS I believe I have located, tagged and described the 13 trees on the property that are most likely to fail. Red alder is what is known as a "pioneer species", or a "disruption species", meaning it colonizes disturbed sites, grows rapidly, and dies young, usually before reaching age 60. Many of the other alder trees in this wetland are nearing the end of their life expectancy. I recommend that the owners monitor the leaf canopies for signs of dieback and inspect the base of the trees often for signs of trunk decay and additional leaning. I suggest that a consulting arborist inspect these trees again in three to four years. Please contact me if you have further questions. John Hushagen, Consulting Arborist M.S. Urban Horticulture Seattle Arboricultural Associates .I ISA Certified Arborist, PN-0108A Tree Risk Assessment Qualified, (TRAQ), Status 18032 17th Ave NW a Shoreline, Washington 98177 • (206) 510-4107 • hushagenjohnd@gmail.com Member: International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) • ISA Certified Arborist, PN-0108A Client � P) oz i vk, Address/Tree Iota 'on Tree srrwrio� Assessors) J O Basic Tree Risk Assessme t Form - Date , Time�Ob D VL�zi1 L Tree no. 1 Sheet of Z dbh 8 �` Weights0 Crown spread dia- .3 0 Time frame Tools used_ /fir%P L�4 ` - Target Assessment TaMn Zone E Occupancy 1 rIr oti L Target.log r .o.+iYlinw.• Z3-frequent P � y m Ts V 4-Cordmnt d E O. 2 3 4 History of failures ' - Topogralihy Fiat[T�ke0 % Aspect_ Site changes None❑ Grade changeO Site clea"❑ Changed sal hydrologyO Root cuts[] Describe Wwe Soilcondihions Limited volume ❑ Saturated El Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ❑�/% Describe Prevailing wind &r.ection / weather Strong winds 0YIce 13 Snow❑ Heavy rain Lq Describe v� 4 Tree Health�an� Sp1R a rnW Vigor Low ❑ NormalHigh O Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests jdT'j3 \ .i2 _ Abiotic Spedesfaihme prolde Brdnches[3 Tnudc❑ RootsO Describ - -� - 'Lt Load Factors bL(iG�11 Windexposure ProtectedO Partialla4ull❑ Armdfunneling❑ Rehitirecrown she Small❑ Meth m Large❑ CnYwndendtV Sparse❑ Normald-Dense❑ haerlw!nFew❑ Normala Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Mosx❑ Recent or pbarured dtarW in load factors / Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Uloelihood of Failure Crown and Brandies — Unbalanoed crown ❑ LCR % Cracla ❑ lightning damage ❑ Dead fiwW/b onches ❑ % overall Max. dia. -- Codominam p Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Maxdia. Weakattadiments ❑ Cavity/hole %ram. Oum-extended brarKhes ❑ ryurilg histmY Previous branch faikrres ❑ _ SmMil r branches present ❑ Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dea/Mwkc bark ❑ Cankers/Gaft/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped O on -tailed ElConks L3 Heartwood dewy ❑ Flush arts 0 Other �� ✓9 , Responserowth/1/F> L Main concem(s) Load on detect N/A 0 Minor �❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of faibue Improbable ❑ Possible 91 Probable O Imminent ❑ —Trunk— — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/MFissing bark ❑ Abnormal bark tadureJcolor ❑ Collar buried/Not visible CI Depth Stem lyrdling ❑ Codominant stuns 0 Included b4 ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead O Dewy ❑ Cordg/Mushrooms O Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Gal/l /Burls❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze El cavity 0 %cke Lightning damage❑ Heartwood decay® Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ QWDamaged roots0 Datzince from Cavity/Nest hpte % Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ S� Ml�uless O Lean �-! corrected? j fi�L /] i% Responsegrowth n x� L Response growthit�vl v� Main concerrt(s) i� L��_l Main eoncengs) Leadondefect N/A Minor Moderate Significant❑ Loidondelect N/A [� MWMI>dera U Significant❑ Wrietihood offellum Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Improbable❑ Possible U Probable ❑ Imminent❑ P� I -Ell Risk Categorization Risk rating of part Aaaia& poll pill Bull 1111 Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix Likelihood Likelihood of Impacting Target of Failure very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrix2. Risk rating matrbc Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely I Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Law Low explanations, descripti S _a Mitigation options / I/��%� Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk North Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High UY EXtfeme ❑ Work priority 1 ❑" 2 ❑ 3 ❑ 4 ❑ Overall re idual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data ❑ =inal ❑ Preliminary advanced assessment needed []No, ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations ONone ❑Visibility []Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe �1 This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists - 2013 Page 2 of 2 Client _ /Lr' Address/Tree location 1!�/ 2- Tree species A C Assessor(sAhA Basic Tree Risk Assessmen Form Cl 4- � _ Date Time // / C K - /t S Tree no. Sheet f of Z l- dhh > f'Height Crown spread dia_ Time frame Tools used LP,t>,( G _T= S ca Tom. A---* r .�. Taqpt zone 0—pancy M1 9E c Targetde4uip0on C x.srate c 3 x 2-oocmnnal '0'6 �� o� �� 3-frequent 7s a .y 4 - constant d E ea " 2 3 4 .HLC rQ6WrJ Ws" ofWarm r 1 t fi It - Topography Fiat[U-ti ipe❑ %Aspect Site changes fie❑ Grade changeD Site dea ❑ 001190d S it Aydrology11 Root 11 Describe Soilconditions limited volume❑Saturated ElShallow❑ Compacted 0,Pavementover roots ❑ % Describe Pre wmddirection Commonweather Strong winds El Ice❑ Snow[] Heavy rain [fYDescribe�/ Tree Hea".and Species Profile Vigor Low l] Normai High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) l/ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests " Abiiodc Spedesfaikue praRle &arches❑ Trunk Roots Describ , LL Load Factors Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial Full ❑ Wmd funneling❑ Relative taown siiae Sma110 Medium iilarge❑ Crowndensity Sparse❑ Normal Dense❑ kteriorbrartdtas Few❑ NomnalfriDense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑ Recent or planned change lnload factors Tree Deflects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown ❑ UCR % Crada ❑ _ Lightner damage ❑ Dead twitgs/branches❑ %overall Max.dia. Codomirlant❑ Indudedbark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number_ Max. dia. Over�dended branches ❑ Weakatlachrrvm ❑ Cavtty/Nesthole %cim. Pruning may Previous branch failures 0 -- — StrNar branches present ❑ Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Wssing bark O Canl=V ❑ Sap&mod damaWdecay❑ Reduced ❑ Topped �❑� Lion ailed 0 Conks ❑ Hea ood decay ❑ Flush arts ❑ Other /I�r1 Lt � Response growth s Mainaoncem(s) L1le- Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor O Moderate ❑ Significant V7oe17rood of falilrne Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ probable p Imminent —Trunk— — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missirg bark ❑ Abnormal bark to turef c olor ❑ CoRar buned/Not visible ElDepth Stem g ❑ Codominant stems ❑ kKhxled bark ❑ Cradis ❑ Dead [I Decay ❑ Conks/Mushmms ❑ Saptwrood damaWdecay ❑ CardErs/Gal s/Burls ❑ sap ooze ❑ ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % cir< L MWW damage❑ Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mtuhraoms ❑ Cavity/Nest hole % � Crad6 O Cut/D�amja roots ❑ Distance from Lvnk Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate Rifting Q Soil weakness ❑ Lean 7 Corrected? Response growth Reqxxisegrowth 141�A,&t4L Main tern() Main concern(s) Land on defect WA ❑ Mmor ❑ Moderate ❑ Slgn firm toad an defect N/A AlrRlof !] Moderate El Significant Ldedihood offaiure likelihood affhIllm Improbabie0 Pussible 0 probable 0 Imminent Improbable0 Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent Px� I -F 1I f $� . � 7 { \ \ \ ƒ \ « ■ % � E » � ¢ % N � � E \ 2. c E_ E A � \ / k C'. � � q ƒ \ k /< _ `\IDƒ� � Cand1dan nuinber � � . MENNEN -11� .. . Motu :` number � \ \ OMEN IN MEN _ MEMENNON MMMCZM MENEM MMwC= MENNEEME mom } MENNEN= MONISM MENNEN moo MENNIMMISM EMEMIN MOMMIMME NEEL, : \ , MENNEEN� MMMIC• MENNEME ENUM= ONE 0 0 MEN - MMIMMEMIM . . MEMMIMMIM ■ __ I r! Basic Tree Risk Assessme t orm�� Client J- `vL- Date 1O Time Address/Tree locati n �i !/ j Tree no. Sheet -�L of Z Tree species `' di,- Assessor(s) D �. t dolt Height �� r _ Crown spread Time frame Tools used T+ A--* 0 L+ 7 Tarim wee rate M1 « L c x C� A C I 3-hrqumt1 A 4-axmtmt s E W a 1 2 7 3 4 sac raa.uw H1 Oryaffailures TopographyFlat9f t�ope0 % Aspect Site changes None Grade change❑ Site deaT)gfs Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe Soil conditiions Limited vohlmep Saturated fa//Shallow O Compacted p�Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe wild direction p/ Prevailing Common weather Strong winds Ice❑ Snow❑ Heavy rain 6 Describe C/ � 11)9-"L Tree Health diid Species Profile Wow low O Normal digh 3 Fo%W None (seasonal) Iff- pone (dead) ❑ Norma % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Abiotic Speciesfaiiure profile Brandies13 Trunk is Descri !LL L LLd factors Wind exposure Protected❑ Partial ull ❑ Wind funneling ❑ Relath a crown size small0 Medium Large ❑ Crowndoo ty Sparse❑ Normal Dense[] hllteriorbrandtes FewO Normal Dense❑ Vlme/Miistietoe/Moss 0 Resent or planned change it bad factors Tree Defects and CondRions Affecting the LikeCrhood of i�irte Crown and Branches — Unbalanaed crown ❑ LCR % Crada 0 LV tming damage ❑ Dead twigs/brarhdws ❑ % overall Maoc dia. ant p Inducted bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number MWLCr . Ovwedbrancthes ❑ Weakat ❑ Cavily/Nezthole %arc. Pr nft hh" Previous branch failures 0 _ _ similar branches phut t7 Crown cleaned ❑ . Thinned ❑ Raised ❑Dead/Missing bark 0 Can 0 SapWood damaWdecav p Reduced 0 Topped ❑ Lion ailed 0 Conks 0 Heartwood decay 0 Flush arts ❑ Other ,� 1,17 R h `L Main cmcem(s) ec M/ I FDmdftAssbv on defect N/A 10nor ❑ Moderat ❑ SWOcant 0 hood of fame Improbable ❑ Passible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent fa - ` —Trunk— — Roots and Root Collar bark ❑ Abnormal bark tehcd,re/oolor ❑ Collar buried/Nat visible ❑ Depth stem girdling ❑ Codomhunt sb ms [IIrNlueled bark ❑ Cracks p Dead ❑ Deny EllCordm/M ❑ 0 sapwooddamaWdecayCankers/Galls/Burls❑ sapoo¢e ❑ pow ❑ Cavity %� L�rmingdamtaWE3 Heartwood Conla/Mudmooms❑ tracts 0 Cut/Damaged roots 0 �tanee from trunk Cavity/Nest hole % arc. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root pate ❑ Sod w ❑ Lean ' Correc ed2 PWqxmse growthf": ugh , 1t1j2k4VW L Main concem(s) Main concem(s) Load on defect WA Minor 17 Modelate p M ❑ ivaci6h detect NSA a KW 0 Moderate 0 SUftant a Likelihood offailure UkellwadoffAm rmpro6able0 Possible 0 Probable 0 Irrlrmlrlent hmprobable❑ possible ❑ probable ❑ Imminent 13/ e" a C a f f F E N f f a S T pN 1 N N � t f9 C�J f�D fD fD Q `C K `C c c c ro < �FCondldan nun JIM m n MMMMlMMlmM MEN �A r�pME TOM Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form � / l Client 2JJL�A Date L `� Time 2S� AddrPu/Tree to don 1D- 1 ii Tree no. Sheet_ of 2 Tree spedes Gt dbh l Height VP" Crown spread dia. z 0" Assessor(s) VtL, Time frame Tools used_ f (��1s L. 2 ea Tagipt aide te i«a�,� a Tareddesarsrdion — 3 x z_ u $ Z y Iq ~ 3-frequent T 4-wnstant n 16 1 Ge J ✓/i � P 2 3 a .a��.c rcu.rana His"Offail 0' ✓ � �` � apog ap�►Flatfl s►ope❑ %Aspect---6 Sibedtan®es No Gradechan�Ued_ee��an�' Changed soil hydrology❑ Rootcuts❑ Describe Sol conditions Limited volume❑ Saturated 8 Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ ,Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe ftevalingwntddhection Cannwn weather Strong winds❑'1ce❑ Snow❑ Heavyrain�escribe V Tree mind Species Profile V eor Law 0 Normal ^H -H�h 0 RAW None (seasonal) None (dead) 0 Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests- � L/d % i Abilod[ /li /9-1 t c" Spedes fame prufde Brandies 0 TrunkIT Load rectors Wind exposure Protected[3 Partial FURS] Wind funneling❑ Crowndensty Sparse❑ NormalIdDemll bt%eriorbrandms Few❑ Norrnalkt" ense❑ Recent or planned dwW in load factors _ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Dead twWbrandies 0 % overall Max dmL Bmken/Hangers Number Maur. d'a. Overvextended branches 0 Pr nfthbMDFV Crown cleaned 0 Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑�Lion-tailed ❑ Flush arts ❑ Other Main concern(s) Cracks ❑ codominant O Weak attachments 0 Previous branch failures ❑ Relative crown size SmallEl vnes/Mistleboe/Moss ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Included bark ❑ CavriLy/Nesthole %circ. Simgar ranches present ❑ Dead/tMmft bark 0 Canlaers/Gan/Burls 0 Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Conks 0 Heartwood decay 0 Response growth Load on defect N/A O Minor O Moderate ❑ Skrri%nt ❑ Likellltood of failure Improbable ❑ Passible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ —Trunk — DeaWssing bark ❑ Abnormal bark tau tar e/color ❑ Codominant stuns ❑ Included bark ❑ Crada ❑ Sapwooddamage/decay❑ Cankers/Gaalllss//Burls❑ Sapooze ❑ lightningdamage❑ Heartwood decay Ef Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cavi y/Nest hole % art Depth poor taper ❑ Lean ' Corrected? Main contem(s) Load on defect N/A Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Skmfkant 0 LiaeINrood offaalrue Improba ftE3 Possible O probable ❑ Imminent IA' - — Roots and Root Collar — Collarburied/Not visible ❑ Depth stern girder ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms; ❑ Ooze O Cavity❑ %arc. Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots 0 Distance from trunk Root plate Wing 0 Sod weakness ❑ Response growth L41.4 Main eoncem(s) Load on defea N/A O'Ww ❑ Modrabe ❑ SgnrwW t ❑ 1.11miihood offale hmprobable❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ lmminemtF1' P�® 1 -1 1� 7 7� $ I [ g } I � § , ■ 2 2 « 7 � 7 i f � t � ¢ 3 & N E ` � c f � E \ \ ) � g � / \ < � � \ 11110 one.': 11110111 all . ,. . lines RED � . MEMMIMMIN MEN \ MENSIMMINE MMMc MENNEN MEN MEMMIMMINE OEM ' \ MEMMINIMINE MOROSE mommmom mom MEMMIMMEM MONISM EMENNIES NEEC ` • MENNIMME MMIMC�\ MOMMEME momONSIONION MEN \ ` MENIMMEMIN MEM� MENEM=� MEN" MMMMIMIMMM MEMIC lilk-m / ƒ , Gent4�?) /14,11,Z e, Address/Tree location . '5�'/ 2 Tree spedes V4c ` -c. S Assessors) i9 Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form �4--B _ Date Time r ree no. Sheet of `�' �44 _ _ /!=J' dbh Y�i ',r Height __ Crown spread dia_ � Time frame Tools used g�R�L I✓'t te—VL T . A— oc-pancy Togetdaaiplion — e 3 x 2-omsio"CL s 1 3-Tigaei �a o Z'i i 4- d a 1 � � 2 3 4 • vvw..� IlofMures 1,i TWwaP yFl;7ffl �Ik E1 % Aspect Site changes None13 Grade dmW[3 �e dearirt❑ (hanged soil hydro Root cuts❑ Describe SoN oortditions lbnited wlume❑ Sadirated ❑ ShaHowO Compacted Q/lNivement over roots ❑ __,% Desarbe Xi L Prevailing wind direction Common wades Strong winds IQ ee❑ Snow❑ Heavy rain9--Describe (ti A� Tree Hkaldh "mod Specks Profile Vigor Low �11 Hrgtl p Eo one (seasonal)❑faRureprofches nmk❑�%Descrit>P ,i4r'.:L,� LOW:Fafto If, windeqposm Protected Partial❑ Full WindfunnelingO Relativecrowesime Sma110 Medium❑ Large❑ Crown dt>reity Sparse Normal❑ Dense❑ Interior brandLes Few Nomralp Densep Vines/Mistletoe/Moss )] Ream or planned change in bad factors ru Tree Defects and ConditkMs;,AffeeHrigthe tNteliltood of Failure Crown and Branchesnbaianeed crown ❑ LCR % Cracks ❑ Dead twW,(brand es ❑ %&,eralL Max Cr Jet _ tn� damage p Broken/Hangets Number Max d'a. `odornirkual7 1nrilldedbark 0 Over -extended branches Vileakal 0 Cavty/Nesthole %tint. p� Previous branch failures ❑ _ S�rbrarr�spresent U Crown cleaned Thinned Raised a,- Dead/Missing bark 0 Cantle VGags/Blals ❑ Sapwood damage/decay O Reduced tJ Topped 0 lion -tailed I] Conks 13 Heartwood decay 13 Flush arts ❑ Other Response growth Main aonaem(s) / Load on defeu N/A ❑ Minor 0 Moderate 17 SigmTkant 0 LUMMU od Of faRrme Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ probable p Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar• — Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnorrlal bark tOdWelcolor ❑ Collar Wm4/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem g p Codombant [I Included bark ❑ Grades ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms p Sapwood damage/de0y ❑ Cankers/Galls/Buds❑ Sap ooze ❑ ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ %car_ Lightni Lg damage❑ Heartwood decay❑ CoNa/Mushrooms ❑ Clacks p Cut/Damaged roots 0 Distancefivm tnmk Cff ft/Nest hole % am Depth Poor taper ❑ Rost P 0 Sog wry ❑ Lean Corret�ed? �-_ All Response growth Main mnrnm(s) �In reg>h �6,c / ztt Loadon I led N/A❑ Mirror❑ Moderate❑ Srgnifkant❑ IAadondefact N/A❑ ~)3 Noderatep Sip Liioddx)od offaawe �/ Ltloelihood offailure rmprobabrel7 Possible E Probable ❑ Imminent U Improbable❑ Possible ® Probable ❑ hnminerlt❑ P®I-f f N N n 9 \1, r r �f@ a ro t � i 4 I ' ess c c c c rJ fD f0 � S ___ n ru 7 �z s Condition nunber MINES lml� limennom OEM �IIINI i� MEMMIMMIN MEN l)J (Wilma uts"My SEWN UMMI V�j \. 221 LF, EX 6' SANITARY SEWN FNOSOCE N ASMSAID M W. sp9m rfswc07wsm 15 IM SEMACK me wd4m= N 26?'I8' E # UT 24 STNfE low wum Em Qum FM. SPI< W/TWK pus (TYP-) WAS wm 143MI thy \,AIJL MA V to* so" L T EXS%G SWi 07.0 C-A loco R\M ecc. AWK ORIVI'VIA Aq 71 185 LF, EX 8SANITARY SEKR CA Kum OU kA lkLW WMARY W.U. 4! PVC 9 2.04 WK CA ;2 I.Ss- .6 14— 143;1 .03 14 W- 44 '-S W26' E-SWX& 2V5 N OVIC W-75,1 1P, FHO. V IRON N W28* W-73.1 0. )L SSW a RIMt834F CWW TD DL Ir WUMY RE.: %M EX SANITARYME MW 07.9 — LOCATION PRIM III MWFLCM rrie mm 71 SEWER EASBOT (ASSWI WIM M4 EX Ir SANITARY MG (w MY ay. & LWANO 0 LOT 1 QN 3045