Loading...
June 1 tree removal request.pdfILArewS. FtAAse Herrick, LTC, ItiSA4, RET, MN, RN 6204 i6151 PLAce Southwest E6 wntoo.ds, WA _92026-4540 TeLephowe: 425-745-3421 E-w,.A%L: KArPv�M-tP.rrGf.nC�'rUSy�.CPrit June 1, 2016 Sean Conrad Associate Planner City of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Mr. Conrad: This is a request for approval to remove three [3] alder trees from Tract 100 [common lot] on the Meadowdale Heights Tract A survey map. This common lot area is jointly owned by the residents of this tract. The request is being submitted with the consent of all these residents. As per our phone discussion of March 15, 2016, I am attaching several items to support the request: 1. Agreement by all "common lot" owners to cut down and keep tree remnants on site to "naturalize". 2. Arborist's Report done by Tree Solutions, Inc. This report includes a. map showing location of the trees on Tract 100 b. pictures of the trees involved c. detailed assessment of each tree d. risk assessment for each tree e. selections for replacements trees. The list of replacement trees included in the Arborist's Report was developed in concert with John and Karen Herrick. The final selection for actual replacement trees will be made by Jeff Gabriel and John Herrick dependent on the ability to secure the type and size trees required by City of Edmonds regulations. Should we be unable to secure appropriate trees from the list included in the Arborist's Report, we will consider alternative available native conifers. We are working with a tree removal and pruning service to group multiple jobs for residents of our cul-de-sac so that we can secure a "batch discount". The original bid for this work was finalized March 31, 2016. We would like to be able to proceed with this work before June 30 and therefore look forward to receiving an approval to proceed as soon as possible. Thank you very much for your timely action and assistance as we have moved through this request process. Respectfully, A -- Karen S. Haase Herrick Consensus Statement Tree Removal and Naturalization of Remnants We undersigned are the owners of a common lot created when the subdivision was platted. We agree and consent to the removal of three alder trees located on the common lot. The location of the three trees are marked on a site .pdf document by note tags. We also agree and consent to the remnants from the tree removal process being left on site on the lot to "naturalize". Signature at re nature Signature Signature Signature Harriet Olitt Jeff Gabriel John or Karen Herrick Kenneth or Jan Keller Al or Anne Compaan Kim Koronko Tree Solutions nc Consulting Arborists Project No. TS - 5338 Arborist Report TO: John Herrick & Jeff Gabriel SITE: 6804 1615Y PI SW and 6908 1615t PI SW, Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: Risk Assessment of Trees in Common Space DATE: May 20, 2016 PROJECTARBORIST: Katie Hogan, ISA Certified Arborist PN- 8078A ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor REVIEWED BY: J. Casey Clapp ISA Certified Arborist PN-7475A ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ATTACHED: ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Forms for trees 1, 2 and 3 Summary I completed a tree assessment of three (3) trees located within a private common space adjacent to the above -addressed homes. The home owners asked that Tree Solutions assess the trees for risk and provide recommendations for the management of these trees. The subject trees are native red alder (Alnus rubra) trees located in a private easement and a designated Environmentally Critical Area (ECA) due to steep slope and landslide hazard. Two of the trees currently present moderate risk; one tree currently presents low risk to nearby targets. Overall, the greatest risk presented by the trees at this time is the failure of large branch parts over the homes, decks, or landscaping. This species of tree is prone to large part failure and, due to the weakly attached canopy parts throughout the trees' crowns, it is possible that these parts could fail and strike a target. While it may be feasible to mitigate some of the risk through reduction pruning and selective branch removal, red alder is not particularly good at compartmentalizing decay. A significant crown reduction could result in more advanced decay and further increase associated risk. Even with pruning, the trees will continue to spread pollen and be a nuisance to the adjacent home owners. The maintenance and risk presented by these trees over the years has exceeded the risk tolerance of the home owners and therefore tree removal is requested. Each tree removed within a Critical Area is to be mitigated with two new native plants. The options for tree species proposed for replacement include: pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia), Douglas maple (Ater glabrum), California wax myrtle (Myrica californica), pacific willow (Salix lucida), Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii), pacific dogwood (Cornus nuttallii), pacific crabapple (Malus fusca), or cascara (Rhamnus purshiana). See Figure 2: Site Map for more details. 2940 Westlake Ave N (Suite 200) • Seattle, WA 98109 Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesolutions.net Herrick & Gabriel —Tree Risk Assessment Report 05.20.2016 pg. 2 of 18 Assignment & Scope of Report This report outlines the site inspection by Katie Hogan of Tree Solutions Inc, on April 20, 2016. 1 was asked to visit the job site and provide a Level Two risk assessment of trees located on City of Edmonds property. The tree size, species, health and structural condition and related notes and recommendations for each tree can be found in Figure 1: Tree Inventory. Risk assessments for each tree are attached. A site map with tree locations and proposed tree locations can be found in Figure 2: Site Map. Photographs, Glossary, and References follow the site map. Limits of assignment can be found in Appendix A. Methods can be found in Appendix B. Additional assumptions and limiting conditions can be found in Appendix C. Details of the risk assessment process can be found in Appendix D. This risk assessments included in this report determines the presence of risk over a limited period of time. The likelihood of whole tree or part failure is based on what is visible during the time of the assessment and what would likely occur under normal weather conditions over a three year time period. Observations & Discussion The Site and History The site is located in the Meadowdale neighborhood within the City of Edmonds. The subject trees are located within a private easement that consists mainly of native tree and shrub species. Invasive ivy (Hedera spp.) and other non-native ground cover species have begun to encroach throughout the forested area. There was evidence of heavy mountain beaver activity along the hillside and the soil was weak in many places as a result. The Trees I inspected three red alder (Alnus rubra) trees for risk. The homeowners just north of the greenspace expressed concern about the trees failing and striking their homes, decks, and landscaping. Additionally, the pollen from the trees has become a nuisance to both homeowners. The pollen heavily layers on the decks in the spring time, creating a slippery layer that requires constant maintenance. Tree 1 is located just southwest of the Herrick residence. I observed a significant column of decay at the base. There was a good rib of response growth around the decayed area, signifying that the health of the tree is sufficient to attempt to occlude the wound. The root system was partially stilted due to soil erosion. The top of the tree appeared to have broken at one point and several new reiterated tops were present as a result. Several of these parts appeared to be weakly attached. I measured the height of the tree to be 65 feet and the distances from the Herrick residence and HOA mailbox to be 53 and 43 feet, respectively. I used the ISA Tree Risk Assessment method and assessed the tree for risk of branch and whole trunk failure. Due to the basal decay, stilted roots, and weakly attached canopy parts, I rated the likelihood of branch failure to be possible and the likelihood of whole tree failure to be probable. 2940 Westlake Ave N (Suite 200) • Seattle, WA 98109 • Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesoIutions.net Herrick & Gabriel —Tree Risk Assessment Report 05.20.2016 pR. 3 of 18 I determined the targets to be the Herrick residence and the HOA mailbox. I considered the consequences that would occur if any branches or the whole tree struck one of the targets. I considered the consequences to be minor if a branch fell the house. I rated the consequences of the whole tree striking the house to be significant and the consequences of the whole tree striking the mailbox to be minor. Based on my findings, experience and knowledge of the tree species, it is my professional opinion that the tree poses a moderate risk to surrounding targets at this time. Tree 2 is a small red alder just south of the Herrick residence. This tree is currently too small to present risk to the surrounding people or structures. However, there is a significant column of decay throughout the stem with one live part still remaining. The crown is unbalanced and growing north toward the available sunlight. This growth form is putting additional stress on the decayed trunk and roots. As the tree grows larger, the structure will further decline and the tree may eventually pose an elevated level of risk. Overall, this tree is not a good long-term specimen and could be replaced with a more suitable tree. Tree 3 is a red alder tree located just south of the Gabriel residence. The crown is growing heavily phototropic (toward sunlight) and leans over the house and deck as a result. One of the main trunks had previously broken and there were multiple co -dominant trunks still intact. I did not observe visible decay at the base of the tree and the root system appeared stable. I spoke with Mr. Gabriel about his concerns regarding this tree and he informed me that the he is worried that parts will break out and damage his new deck. Furthermore, the heavy pollen dispersal coats his deck and makes it slippery and difficult to maintain. I measured the height of the tree to be 60 feet and the distance from the trunk to the deck to be 35 feet. Based on my observations, the greatest risk currently presented from this tree is from large canopy parts and co -dominant trunks breaking and striking the Gabriel house and new deck. I used the ISA Tree Risk Assessment method and assessed the tree for risk of branch and co -dominant trunk failure. I rated the likelihood of branch or co -dominant trunk failure to be possible. I determined the targets to be the Gabriel residence and deck. I considered the consequences that would occur if any branches or co -dominant trunks struck one of the targets. I considered the consequences to be minor if a branch fell and hit the house or deck. I rated the consequences of the a larger co -dominant trunk striking the house or deck to be significant. Based on my findings, experience and knowledge of the tree species, it is my professional opinion that the tree poses a moderate risk at this time. The City of Edmonds requires that each tree proposed for removal within an ECA be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. Replacement trees should be at least 1 inch DSH for deciduous trees and a minimum or 6 feet tall for evergreen trees. A list of recommended species can be found in the Recommendations section. 2940 Westlake Ave N (Suite 200) • Seattle, WA 98109 • Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesolutions.net Herrick & Gabriel —Tree Risk Assessment Report 05.20.2016 1: Tree Inventory Common Name Botanical Name Red alder I Alnus rubra Red alder Alnus rubra pg. 4 of 18 DSH , Generals * Health 23.0 Good Decay at base, stilted roots, reiterated top with weakly attached parts 11.0 Poor Significant column of decay - hollow 3 Red alder Anus rubra14.6 Good Broken stem, co -dominant trunks, iheavy phototropic lean to north *Diameter at Standard Height (inches) Recommendations * Reduce heights of trees 1, 2, and 3 to less than 20 feet for wildlife and slope stabilization purposes. o Consider using wood from removed trees to stabilize slope —place horizontal to slope. * Replant along crest of slope with native tree species. Each tree removed should be mitigated with two new native trees. Replacement trees should be at least 1 inch DSH for deciduous trees and a minimum or 6 feet tall for evergreen trees. Below are some options for species: o Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia) o Douglas maple (Acer glabrum) o California wax myrtle (Myrica californica) o Pacific willow (Salix lucida) o Sitka willow (Salixsitchensis) o Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) o Pacific dogwood (Cornus nuttallii) o Pacific crabapple (Malus fusca) o Cascara (Rhamnus purshiana) 2940 Westlake Ave N (Suite 200) • Seattle, WA 98109 • Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesoIutions.net pg. 5 of 18 Herrick & Gabriel —Tree Risk Assessment Report 05.20.2016 Site Map and Plans Aerial Site Man Figure 2: Locations of existing trees proposed for removal shown with red circles. Locations of trees proposed for planting to mitigate removed trees shown with green circles. Source: City of Edmonds GIS data, accessed 04.28.2016. 2940 Westlake Ave N (Suite 200) • Seattle, WA 98109 • Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesoIutions.net Herrick & Gabriel —Tree Risk Assessment Report pg. 6 of 18 Figure 3: Site Survey (VDLUMIE 5 PAGE 38) of TIZAC U ¢ACT 46 i n,'12 ' 54.97• �O .a 124, aT• 00' rl ° • . TRACT gR (PRIVATE ROAD) 3. / • — S o'--- - z°' ! IG I w p9• or' �' E 1w1 y.o q. eo•oo'oo" I loaoo' Q46. 3 Tree 1 8 8 q • 9L' [ 5' 4a' s4 ss' r9 n 8 r 8 ti 161st PL. S,W. .c I 1 e• Irrrr•c' �- - � � � 'sore' s.� •'poi• •►. t—"—'ii :":'Si`— - I zc _ ` r1.a PRIVATE R04 p u -- ! --'t9�.oe _—;-=r'— . -.\ .doe• u1 .00' 1 ''-=� ". — "� e•t+•n'ss _ w te•n'srw A q�eTY 'ro' 1 '_•., f t Y Tree 3 zoo oo' rIt aefiD • bees w 1 �� yw•r�Yv K•.w tr f' a� � I A C4 • / YMMMt Jr pprA Tree 2 L•G') 26' TRACT 100 cw•4r.B6' -- •--= x r T �iG.iO' for ' OPEN SPACE AREA r � •� i � -t'�f—• h N;` LWFS MP)l _ _ ...._. � 1 l4e.aa ie' SI' W Ciao •50' I ( E AD0WDAL,E H T 3 -TRACT A 1 (VOLUME 4e PAGE 124) Figure 3: Land survey showing ownership and tree location. 2940 Westlake Ave N (Suite 200) • Seattle, WA 98109 • Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesoIutions.net Herrick & Gabriel —Tree Risk Assessment Report 05.20.2016 Photographs z.. " z� Photo 1: Looking south at the decay column in Tree 1. Photo 2: Looking southwest toward tree 1. pg. 7 of 18 2940 Westlake Ave N (Suite 200) • Seattle, WA 98109 • Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesolutions.net Herrick & Gabriel —Tree Risk Assessment Report 05.20.2016 Photo 3: Looking northeast toward decay column in tree 2. Photo 4: Looking west toward tree 3 over Gabriel residence. pg. 8 of 18 2940 Westlake Ave N (Suite 200) • Seattle, WA 98109 • Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesolutions.net Herrick & Gabriel —Tree Risk Assessment Report 05.20,2016 Glossary pg. 9 of 18 co -dominant stems: stems or branches of nearly equal diameter, often weakly attached (Matheny et a/. 1998) cracks: defects in trees that, if severe, may pose a risk of tree or branch failure (Lilly 2001) crown: the aboveground portions of a tree (Lilly 2001) deciduous: tree or other plant that loses its leaves sometime during the year and stays leafless generally during the cold season (Lilly 2001) DSH: diameter at standard height; the diameter of the trunk measured 54 inches (4.5 feet) above grade (Matheny eta/. 1998) epicormic: arising from latent or adventitious buds (Lilly 2001) ISA: International Society of Arboriculture included bark: bark that becomes embedded in a crotch between branch and trunk or between co - dominant stems and causes a weak structure (Lilly 2001) landscape function: the environmental, aesthetic, or architectural functions that a plant can have (Lilly 2001) level(s) of assessment: categorization of the breadth and depth of analysis used in an assessment (ISA 2013) limited visual assessment: a visual assessment from a specified perspective such as foot, vehicle, or aerial (airborne) patrol of an individual tree or a population of trees near specified targets to identify specified conditions or obvious defects (ISA 2013) mitigation: process of reducing damages or risk (Lilly 2001) owner/manager: the person or entity responsible for tree management or the controlling authority that regulates tree management (ISA 2013) phototropic growth: growth toward light source or stimulant (Harris et a/.1999) retain and monitor: the recommendation to keep a tree and conduct follow-up assessments after a stated inspection interval (ISA 2013) snag: a tree left partially standing for the primary purpose of providing habitat for wildlife structural defects: flaws, decay, or other faults in the trunk, branches, or root collar of a tree, which may lead to failure (Lilly 2001) Visual Tree Assessment (VTA): method of evaluating structural defects and stability in trees by noting the pattern of growth. Developed by Claus Mattheck (Harris, eta/ 1999) 2940 Westlake Ave N (Suite 200) • Seattle, WA 98109 • Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesolutions.net Herrick & Gabriel —Tree Risk Assessment Report 05.20.2016 References pg. 10 of 18 ANSI A300 (Part 1) — 2008 American National Standards Institute. American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance: Standard Practices (Pruning). New York: Tree Care Industry Association, 2008. Dunster & Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. Assessing Trees in Urban Areas and the Urban - Rural Interface, US Release 1.0. Silverton: Pacific Northwest Chapter ISA, 2006. Dunster, Julian A., E. Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly. Tree Risk Assessment Manual. Champaign, Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture, 2013. E. Smiley, N. Matheny, S. Lilly. Best Management Practices: TREE RISK ASSESSMENT. ISA 2011. Lilly, Sharon. Arborists' Certification Study Guide. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 2001. Mattheck, Claus and Helge Breloer, The Body Language of Trees.: A Handbook for Failure Analysis. London: HMSO, 1994. 2940 Westlake Ave N (Suite 200) • Seattle, WA 98109 • Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesoIutions.net Herrick & Gabriel —Tree Risk Assessment Report 05.20.2016 Appendix A - Limits of Assignment pg. 11 of 18 Unless stated otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those trees that were examined and reflects the condition of those trees at the time of inspection; and 2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of the subject trees without dissection, excavation, probing, climbing, or coring unless explicitly specified. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the subject trees may not arise in the future. Tree Solutions did not review any reports or perform any tests related to the soils located on the subject property unless outlined in the scope of services. Tree Solutions staff are not and do not claim to be soils experts. Independent inventory and evaluation of the soils on site should be obtained by a qualified professional if additional understanding of site characteristics is needed to make an informed decision. A Hazard Tree is defined as a tree that has been assessed and determined to have characteristics that make it an unacceptable risk for continued retention. A hazard tree, or a hazardous component, exists when the sum of the risk factors equals or exceeds a predetermined threshold of risk. The predetermined threshold for risk and the actions required to reduce the risk below that threshold is established by the risk manager. As a Qualified Tree Risk Assessor, my job is to provide the risk manager, in most cases the property owner, with technical information required to make informed decisions. The risk manager must make the decision about how to implement the actions required to reduce risk to acceptable levels. 2940 Westlake Ave N (Suite 200) • Seattle, WA 98109 • Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesoIutions.net Herrick & Gabriel —Tree Risk Assessment Report 05.20.2016 Appendix B - Methods pg. 12 of 18 I evaluated tree health and structure utilizing visual tree assessment (VTA) methods. The basis behind VTA is the identification of symptoms, which trees produce in reaction to weak spots or areas of mechanical stress. Trees react to mechanical and physiological stresses by growing more vigorously to re -enforce weak areas, while depriving less stressed parts (Mattheck & Breloer 1994). Understanding uniform stress allows me to make informed judgments about the condition of a tree. Using the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Tree Risk Assessment Qualification method, I assigned a risk rating to the tree. I performed a Level 1, 2, or 3 risk assessment of all trees as outlined in the Best Management Practices companion publication to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Part 9: Tree Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management — Standards and Practices, Tree Risk Assessment. This approach provides assessors a structured process, based on good science and arboriculture, to assign recommended thresholds for action for the purpose of informing risk managers. Additional information regarding the method can be found in Appendix F. I measured the diameter of each tree at 54 inches above grade, diameter at standard height (DSH). 2940 Westlake Ave N (Suite 200) • Seattle, WA 98109 - Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesolutions.net Herrick & Gabriel —Tree Risk Assessment Report 05.20.2016 Appendix C - Assumptions & Limiting Conditions pg. 13 of 18 1. Consultant assumes that any legal description provided to Consultant is correct and that title to property is good and marketable. Consultant assumes no responsibility for legal matters. Consultant assumes all property appraised or evaluated is free and clear, and is under responsible ownership and competent management. 2. Consultant assumes that the property and its use do not violate applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or regulations. 3. Although Consultant has taken care to obtain all information from reliable sources and to verify the data insofar as possible, Consultant does not guarantee and is not responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 4. Client may not require Consultant to testify or attend court by reason of any report unless mutually satisfactory contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such Services as described in the Consulting Arborist Agreement. 5. Unless otherwise required by law, possession of this report does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any person other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior express written consent of the Consultant. 6. Unless otherwise required by law, no part of this report shall be conveyed by any person, including the Client, the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media without the Consultant's prior express written consent. 7. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the Consultant, and the Consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specific value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event or upon any finding to be reported. 8. All photographs included in this report were taken by Tree Solutions Inc. during the documented site visit, unless otherwise noted. 9. Sketches, drawings and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of any information generated by architects, engineers or other consultants and any sketches, drawings or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of such information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Consultant as to the sufficiency or accuracy of the information. 10. Unless otherwise agreed, (1) information contained in this report covers only the items examined and reflects the condition of the those items at the time of inspection; and (2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, climbing, or coring. Consultant makes no warranty or guarantee, express or implied, that the problems or deficiencies of the plans or property in question may not arise in the future. 11. Loss or alteration of any part of this Agreement invalidates the entire report. 2940 Westlake Ave N (Suite 200) • Seattle, WA 98109 • Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesolutions.net Herrick & Gabriel —Tree Risk Assessment Report 05.20.2016 Appendix D - Qualified Tree Risk Assessment pg. 14 of 18 The International Society of Arboriculture has developed a standardized and systematic process for assessing tree risk. This approach evaluates the likelihood of whole tree or part failure and any associated consequences, based on what is visible during the time of the site visit and what would likely occur under normal weather conditions, over a limited time period. LEVELS OF RISK ASSESSMENT Level 1— Survey Level 1 shall be a limited visual assessment of an individual tree or a population of trees to identify specified conditions or defects. Conditions to be identified should include obvious defects. Level 1 assessment shall be from a limited, specified perspective, such as drive -by, walk -by or aerial patrol. Level 1 survey assessment methodology shall be specified. Periodic assessments, monitoring, and follow-up recommendations should be made based on the outcome of the assessment and the objectives. Level 2 — Basic Level 2 assessments shall include a 360-degree, ground -based visual inspection of the tree crown, trunk, above -ground roots, and site conditions around the tree. Use of hand tools, trowels, binoculars, or probes, shall not be precluded from a Level 2 assessment. A mallet or other tool should be used to sound the trunk, root collar and above ground buttress roots in order to detect large hollows and loose bark. Level 2 shall provide a detailed visual inspection of a tree(s) to detect the conditions specified and tree defects in relation to surrounding targets. A basic assessment should include the identification of conditions indicating the presence of structural defects including, but not limited to: • Dead, diseased, broken branches, stems, and roots; • Weakly attached branches and co -dominant stems; • Mechanical damage and cracks into the wood; • Abnormal growth such as swelling, ribs, flat areas, or seams; • Indications of decay and cankers; • Root plate lifting, abnormal trunk flare, lack of trunk flare, soil cracks, grade change, restricted or undermined roots; • Unusual tree architecture including lean, low live crown ratio, poor taper, and crown asymmetry Level 2 inspections should be conducted annually; more frequently if species, tree size, tree condition or other factors indicate a need for a more frequent interval. Scheduling inspections shall be the responsibility of the tree owner. Monitoring and follow-up recommendations should be made based on the outcome of the assessment and the objectives. Level 3 — Advanced Level 3 assessments shall include all Level 2 requirements. Level 3 shall include advanced method(s) to provide more detailed information on tree structural strength, the extent of specific structural defects, conditions, or other factors in relation to a target. Level 3 assessment shall include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following tree assessment techniques: aerial assessment of branch or stem defects; micro -resistance drilling; evaluation of target risk; increment boring; probing; pull testing; radiation assessment (i.e. radar, x-ray, gamma ray); sonic assessment; sounding; and, sub -surface root and/or soil assessment. 2940 Westlake Ave N (Suite 200) • Seattle, WA 98109 • Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesoIutions.net Herrick & Gabriel —'Tree Risk Assessment Report 05.20.2016 pg. 15 of 18 LIKELIHOOD OF FAILURE Improbable: the tree or branch is not likely to fail during normal weather conditions and may not fail in many severe weather conditions within the specified time frame Possible: failure could occur, but it is unlikely during normal weather conditions within the specified time frame Probable: failure may be expected under normal weather conditions within the specified time frame Imminent: failure has started or is most likely to occur in the near future, even if there is no significant wind or increased load. This is a rare occurrence for a risk assessor to encounter, and it may require immediate action to protect people from harm LIKELIHOOD OF IMPACTING A TARGET Very Low: the chance of the failed tree or branch impacting the specified target is remote. This is the case in a rarely used site fully exposed to the assessed tree or an occasionally used site that is partially protected by trees or structures. Examples included a rarely used trail or trail head in a rural area, or an occasionally used area that has some protection against being struck by the tree failure due to the presence of other trees between the tree being assessed and the targets Low: it is not likely that the failed tree or branch will impact the target. This is the case in an occasionally used area that is fully exposed to the assessed tree, a frequently used area that is partially exposed to the assessed tree, or a constant target that is well protected from the assessed tree. Examples include a little -used service road next to the assessed tree or a frequently used public street that has a street tree between the street and the assessed tree Medium: the failed tree or branch may not impact the target, with nearly equal likelihood. This is the case in a frequently used area that is fully exposed on one side to the assessed tree or a constantly occupied area that is partially protected from the assessed tree. Examples include a suburban street next to the assessed street tree or a house that is partially protected from the assessed tree by an intermediate tree High: the failed tree or branch will most likely impact the target. This is the case when a fixed target is fully exposed to the assessed tree or near a high -use road or walkway with an adjacent street tree Likelihood of Failure (Tree) Imminent Probable Possible Improbable Likelihood of Impacting Target (Person or Property) Very Low Low Unlikely Somewhat likely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Medium Somewhat likely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Unlikely Figure A: Risk rating matrix showing the level of risk as the combination of likelihood of a tree failing and impacting a specified target. 2940 Westlake Ave N (Suite 200) - Seattle, WA 98109 • Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesoIutions.net Herrick & Gabriel —Tree Risk Assessment Report 05.20,2016 CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE pg. 16 of 18 Negligible: consequences are those that involve low -value property damage or disruption that can be replaced or repaired, and do not involve personal injury. Minor: consequences are those that involve low -to -moderate property damage or small disruptions to traffic or a communication utility. Significant: consequences are those that involve property damage of moderate -to -high value, considerable disruption, or personal injury. Severe: consequences are those that could involve serious personal injury or death, damage to high -value property, or disruption of important activities. Likelihood of Failure and Consequences (to target) Impact Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate _��N �� Likely Low Moderate® Somewhat Low Low Moderate Moderate likely Unlikely I Low Low Low Low Figure e: Risk rating matrix showing the level of risk as the combination of the likelihood of a tree failing and impacting a specified target, and the severity of the associated consequences. 2940 Westlake Ave N (Suite 200) Seattle, WA 98109 • Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesoIUtior)s.net Herrick & Gabriel —Tree Risk Assessment Report 05.20.2016 pg. 17 of 18 RISK RATING CATEGORIES, TIMING FOR MITIGATION In the tree risk assessment matrix, four terms are used to define levels of risk; low, moderate, high, and extreme. These risk ratings are used to communicate the level of risk and to assist in making recommendations to the owner or risk manager for mitigation and inspection frequency. The priority for action depends upon the risk rating and risk tolerance of the owner or manager. Extreme —The extreme -risk category applies in situations in which failure is imminent and there is a high likelihood of impacting the target, and the consequences of the failure are "severe." The tree risk assessor should recommend that mitigation measures be taken as soon as possible. In some cases this may mean immediate restriction of access to the target zone area to avoid injury to people. High —High -risk situations are those for which consequences are "significant" and likelihood is "very likely" or "likely," or consequences are "severe" and likelihood is "likely." This combination of likelihood and consequences indicates that the tree risk assessor should recommend mitigation measures be taken. The decision for mitigation and timing of treatment depends upon the risk tolerance of the tree owner or manager. In populations of trees, the priority of high -risk trees is second only to extreme -risk trees. Moderate —Moderate -risk situations are those for which consequences are "minor" and likelihood is "very likely" or "likely"; or likelihood is "somewhat likely" and consequences are "significant" or "severe." The tree risk assessor may recommend mitigation and/or retaining and monitoring. The decision for mitigation and timing of treatment depends upon the risk tolerance of the tree owner or manager. In populations of trees, moderate -risk trees represent a lower priority than high- or extreme -risk trees. Low —The low -risk category applies when consequences are "negligible" and likelihood is "unlikely"; or consequences are "minor" and likelihood is "somewhat likely." Some trees with this level of risk may benefit from mitigation or maintenance measures, but immediate action is not usually required. Tree risk assessors may recommend retaining and monitoring these trees, as well as mitigation that does not include removal of the tree. Source: E. Smiley, N. Matheny, S. Lilly. Best Management Practices: TREE RISK ASSESSMENT. ISA 2011. OPTIONS FOR MITIGATION Remove the risk altogether, if possible, by cutting off one or more branches, removing dead wood, or possibly removing the entire tree. Extreme risk situations should be closed off until the risk is abated. Modify the risk of failure probability. In some cases it maybe possible to reduce the probability of failure by adding mechanical support in the form of cables braces or props. Modify the risk rating by moving the target_ Risk ratings can sometimes be lowered by moving the target so that there is a much lower probability of the defective part striking anything. Moving the target should generally be seen as an interim measure. Retain and monitor. This approach is used where some defects have been noted but they are not yet serious and the present risk level is only moderate. 2940 Westlake Ave N (Suite 200) • Seattle, WA 98109 - Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesoIutions.net Herrick & Gabriel —Tree Risk Assessment Report 05.20,2016 DEFINITIONS (RISK) pg. 18 of 18 acceptable risk: the degree or amount of risk that the owner, manager, or controlling authority is willing to accept (ISA 2013) acceptable threshold: the highest level of risk that does not exceed the owner/manager's tolerance (ISA 2013) consequences: outcome of an event (ISA 2013) consequences of failure: personal injury, property damage, or disruption of activities due to the failure of a tree or tree part (ISA 2013) likelihood: the chance of an event occurring. In the context of tree failures, the term may be used to specify: (1) the chance of a tree failure occurring; (2) the chance of impacting a specified target; and (3) the combination of the likelihood of a tree failing and the likelihood of impacting a specified target (ISA 2013) likelihood of failure: the chance of a tree failure occurring within the specified time frame (ISA 2013) likelihood of failure and impact: the chance of a tree failure occurring and impacting a target within the specified time frame (ISA 2013) likelihood of impact: the chance of a tree failure impacting a target during the specified time frame ISA 2013) likely (likelihood of failure and impact): defined by its placement in the likelihood matrix (see Matrix 1 on page 2 of the Tree Risk Assessment form); imminent likelihood of failure and medium likelihood of impact, or probable likelihood of failure and high likelihood of impact (ISA 2013) limited visual assessment: a visual assessment from a specified perspective such as foot, vehicle, or aerial (airborne) patrol of an individual tree or a population of trees near specified targets to identify specified conditions or obvious defects (ISA 2013) mitigation: process of reducing damages or risk (Lilly 2001) mitigation options: alternatives for reducing risk (ISA 2013) mitigation priority: established hierarchy for mitigation of risks based on risk ratings, budget, resources, and policies (ISA 2013) residual risk: risk remaining after mitigation (ISA 2013) risk perception: the subjective perceived level of risk from a situation or object, often differing from the actual level of risk (ISA 2013) risk rating: the level of risk combining the likelihood of a tree failing and impacting a specified target, and severity of the associated consequences (ISA 2013) risk tolerance: degree of risk that is acceptable to the owner, manager, or controlling authority (ISA 2013) target: person, object, or structure that could be injured or damaged in the event of tree or branch failure (Lilly 2001) target -based actions: risk mitigation actions aimed at reducing the likelihood of impact in the event of tree failure (ISA 2013) target management: acting to control the exposure of targets to risk (ISA 2013) target value: the monetary worth of something; the importance or preciousness of something (ISA 2013) target zone: the area where a tree or branch is likely to land if it were to fail (ISA 2013) tree risk assessment: a systematic process used to identify, analyze, and evaluate tree risk (ISA 2013) tree risk evaluation: the process of comparing the assessed risk against given risk criteria to determine the significance of the risk (ISA 2013) tree risk management: the application of policies, procedures, and practices used to identify, evaluate, mitigate, monitor, and communicate tree risk (ISA 2013) unacceptable risk: a degree of risk that exceeds the tolerance of the owner, manager, or controlling authority (ISA 2013) 2940 Westlake Ave N (Suite 200) • Seattle, WA 98109 • Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesolutions.net (-Iipnt John & Karen Herrick Address/Tree location common space Tree species Alnus rubra, Red alder Assessor(s) Katie Hogan, PN-8078A ISM. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Date 04.20.2016 Time 11:00am west of tax parcel #00769600000200 Tree no. 1 Sheet 1 of 2 dbh 23 Inches Height 65 feet Crown spread dia. 20 Time frame 3 years Tools used VTA, diameter tape, hypsometer Tareet Assessment Target zone Occupancy m r .3 c i y X �° c- rate 1-rare u �° m c n. m c Target description a F c x ,,, 2-occasional —clone � to 0 -.0 N p F ; i F 1 ant 4-constant ` a E f° z a 1 6804 House ✓ 4 No No 2 HOA mailbox ✓ 2 Yes No 3 4 bite i-actors History of failures Small tree failures into ravine Topography Flat❑ Slopef % Aspect sw Sitechanges None[] Gradechange❑ Siteclearing❑ Changedsoilhydrology❑ Rootcuts❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited volume ■ Saturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe Prevailing wind direction SSW Common weather Strong winds ■ Ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain ■ Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ■ Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal _% Chlorotic % Necrotic Pests Abiotic Species failure profile Branches■ Trunk■ Roots■ Describe Load Factors Windexposure Protected■ Partial[:] Full❑ Windfunneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium0 Large❑ Crown density Sparse ❑ Normal ■ Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal ■ Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or planned change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown ■ LCR % Cracks ❑ _ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches ■ _%overall Max. dia. Codominant ■ Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. _ Weak attachments ■ Cavity/Nest hole _%circ. Over -extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures ■ Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth Main concern(s) Failure of weakly attached canopv parts Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ■ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ■ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark ■ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ■ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ %circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay■ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ■ Lean ° Corrected? Response growth Fair Response growth Main concern(s) Advanced stem decay leading to whole tree Main concern(s) Failure at root system due to lack of failure stable soil Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ■ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ■ Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ■ Imminent ❑ Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ■ Imminent ❑ Page I of 2 Risk Cateeorization . ... - ®� m N N o c N N O N N o cc N o o • . . o Rono � c�cc cNN1100 X� rdecayed .. _ NNNN Nccc ME WNN cccc Canopy. - mmamNUNNcoccrONnNNoce �m©■� NONN oNNN onnN Nocc � ..attached .. NNNN NNNN cc lei c NNNn ccocc�cc 101 cc ----ccccccccl�ccccccl• �c11c9� 0 Ice] N N N N N N c RE c c c NN lei N 0 NNNNNNNc NNNN NNNc ---- MERE NI_NNCNNNNNNI� 0 0 M � NNND CCCC CccEel N Eel NN Matrix I. 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 ratine matrix. Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Notes, explanations, descriptions The tree is in a state of structural decline. The root system is stilted and about 40 percent of the trunk circumference is decayed. Greatest risk is from whole tree failure onto adjacent house/deck - no ideal mitigation options. Excessive removal of live foliaae is not recommended. Mitigation options 1. Shorten to wildlife North Residual risk Low Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ■ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Work priority 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ■ 4 ❑ Overall residual risk Low 0 Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data N Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed IdNo []Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations WNone ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe 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 Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form IS. 11 00 Client John & Karen Herrick Date 04.20.2010 Time • am Address/Tree location Common space just west of tax parcel #00769600000200 Tree no. 2 Sheet 1 of 2 Tree species Alnus rubra, Red alder dbh 11 inches Height 20 feet Crown spread dia. 10 Assessor(s) Katie Hogan, PN-8078A Time frame 3 years Tools used VTA, diameter tape, hypsometer Tareet Assessment Target zone Occupancy 0p .0 c C 'a tU X �,° - rate 1—rare o d .• m �p c o a. L U r Target description c L 1-ofrequ nt, 3-frequent Lm U > .� « u �9 4-constant E E a 1 6804 House 4 No No 2 HOA mailbox 2 Yes No 3 4 bite ractors History of failures Small tree failures into ravine Topography Flat❑ SlopeM % Aspect sw Sitechanges None❑ Grade change❑ Siteclearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Rootcuts❑ Describe_ Soil conditions Limited volume ■ Saturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe Prevailing wind direction SSW Common weather Strong winds ■ Ice❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain ■ Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ■ Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic Pests Abiotic Species failure profile Branches■ Trunk■ Roots■ Describe Load Factors Wind exposure Protected ■ Partial ❑ Full ❑ Wind funneling ❑ _ Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium f Large ❑ Crowndensity Sparse[] Normal■ Dense❑ Interior branches Few❑ Normal■ Dense[] Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑ Recent or planned change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown ■ LCR % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches ■ _%overall Max. dia. Codominant ■ Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weak attachments ■ Cavity/Nest hole _%circ. Over -extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures ■ Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth Main concern(s) Failure of weakly attached canopv parts once tree qrows to size and is within ranqe of tarqets Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ■ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ■ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark ■ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ■ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ %circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ■ Lean ° Corrected? Response growth Poor Response growth Main concern(s) Advanced stem decay leading to whole tree Main concern(s) Failure at root system due to lack of failure stable soil and decay Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ■ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ■ Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ■ Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ■ Imminent ❑ Page I of 2 Risk Cateeorization Elm . . rating of part . _ . _ ..... _ ®mom cc • o ��cc c� inn cc • •� Ce �CCCCCC D© �0� e • decayed . - CCNC CCCC Ce rejXX CC�NC Canopy- . mmm� wxno O CCCce 009 W HENC = COCX CCCC CCX7`7 CC70C parts attached parts cccc ccc� c• ono cc�c IIN MN cccc c ao � oco N M cac� c oo cc•�a� coo• 0 M N cc cc �ccc r lno aocc 000 cock cc�c cnn© Xocc M 0 M CCC e CCCC Ce Eel 0o Eel CC 0 M 0 CCCD CCCC CCOEel C Eel C Matrix/. 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 ratinz matrix. Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Notes, explanations, descriptions The tree is currently too small to present elevated risk however, the tree is significantly decayed and likely will not recover to a stable condition. As the tree grows larger, it may present elevated risk to the surrounding targets. The tree is not a good long-term tree. Mitigation options 1. Shorten to wildlife snag Overall tree risk rating Low ■ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Overall residual risk Low N Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ North Residual risk Low Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Work priority 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ■ 4 ■ Recommended inspection interval _ Data 0 Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed WNo ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations WNone ❑Visibility ❑Access []Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe 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 ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client Jeff Gabriel Date 04.20.2016 Time 11:OOam Address/Tree location Common space just west of tax Tree species Alnus rubra, Red alder Assessor(s) Katie Hogan, PN-8078A #00769600000200 Tree no. 3 Sheet 1 of 2 dbh 24.6 inches Height 60 feet Crown spread dia. 20 Time frame 3 years Tools used VTA, diameter tape, hypsometer Target Assessment Target zone Occupancy `w mE r X ` rate 1—rare m ro M c n r e Target description g p n �� �° H tc ., x v! 2-occasional 3-frequent a 0 H" M F 4-constant 2 a` E o°1e n 1 6908 House - Gabriel Residence ✓ 4 No No 2 3 4 site i-actors History of failures Small tree failures into ravine Topography Flat❑ SlopeO % Aspect sw Sitechanges None[:] Grade change❑ Siteclearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Rootcuts❑ Describe_ Soil conditions Limited volume ■ Saturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe Prevailing wind direction SSW Common weather Strong winds ■ Ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain ■ Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ■ Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic pests Abiotic Species failure profile Branches■ Trunk■ Roots■ Describe Load Factors Windexposure Protected■ Partial❑ Full❑ Windfunneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium19 Large[] Crowndensity Sparse❑ Normal■ Dense[] Interior branches Few❑ Normal■ Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑ Recent or planned change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown ■ LCR % Cracks ❑ _ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches ■ %overall Max. dia. Codominant ■ Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weak attachments ■ Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Over -extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures ■ Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ _ Flush cuts ❑ Othei Response growth Main concern(s) Failure of weakly attached canopv parts onto new deck Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate W Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ■ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ■ Included bark ■ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ■ Lean ° Corrected? Response growth Fair Response growth Main concern(s) Failure at large co -dominant unions Main concern(s) None Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant O Load on defect N/A ■ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ■ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Improbable ■ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Page I of 2 Risk Cateeorization = loll . 0 0 a M101M�cc�@rr7naa❑on .. �MM 0 a W a CCCC C0� � 0 .0 • ... MMM MEN Canopym . , om o00o cccc �nMENUMINIM.._ mmm�ao�ocooncna caoINI M _ _ ... M M M � W a c c c o Eel c r• r• n o ococ = 00 � c elxs o cco� aco • MMM�coonaoaor•noncoal• m M M M coWo 191ccc X Xrel K coca MM� COCC CCCC INMEN O REN M M M OCM101 Me co W115M DMC M MMM� CCCD CCCC CCOM OCC 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 1 Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable I Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrix2. Risk rating matrix. 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 Low Low Notes, explanations, descriptions This tree is growing over the adjacent house and new deck. Canopy parts overhang the deck and in the event of failure, would likely strike the new deck and house. The tree appears fairly stable but has several weakly attached canopy Mitigation options 1. Shorten to wildlife snag Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ■ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Overall residual risk Low W Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ North 1- -.00 Residual risk Low Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Work priority 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 ■ 4 ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data W Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed WNo ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations WNone ❑Visibility ❑Access []Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe 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