Tree Maintenance CRA2021-0117CITY 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
`ne. 18y1i
June 25, 2021
Traci Brown
tracib2wins@gmail.com
Subject: Tree Maintenance in Critical Area
626 Elm Place
Dear Ms. Brown,
You have contacted the city regarding the trimming and removal of eight alder trees located in the
common area of the Elm Place development. The trees are located adjacent to Willow Creek. Willow
Creek is considered a critical area according to Chapters 23.40 and 23.90 of the Edmonds Community
Development Code. Generally, trees within a critical area or critical area buffer may only be removed if
they are hazard trees. For City of Edmonds purposes, we consider trees to be hazard trees when the ISA
Tree Risk Assessment identifies a tree with an overall risk of High or Extreme. The initial request
proposed the removal of some trees and the trimming of other trees. However, the trees identified for
removal only had a Moderate tree risk rating and thus are not considered hazard trees.
The proposal has subsequently been changed so that trees will only be trimmed for health and safety
reason in accordance with ANSI 300 (with the exception of using spurs). The trimming of the trees is
considered normal maintenance of vegetation and is exempt from critical area report requirements
pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230.C.2.
The maintenance of the eight alder trees is approved with the following conditions:
1. This approval only pertains only to the eight alder trees identified in the attached reports.
2. Vehicles and equipment shall be located on private property. Should it be necessary to
utilize any portion of the City right-of-way, including the street or sidewalk, to perform
any of this work then the contractor shall apply for and obtain a right-of-way
construction permit in advance of starting work. A traffic control plan will be required
as part of the right-of-way permit application.
3. Contractor/owner is responsible for keeping all debris on site and preventing any silt
laden runoff from leaving the site and/or entering the city storm system.
4. Contractor/owner shall repair/replace any damaged sections of curb/gutter, sidewalk or
other public improvements in City right-of-way per City standards that is caused by or
occurs during the permitted project.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions at kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov, or 425-771-0220.
Sincerely,
9,0
Kernen Lien
Environmental Programs Manager
Lonnson Arbor Care
2616 1691h Street SE
Bothell, WA 98012
425-891-1741
lonnson@junoxom
June 15, 2021
Elm Place HOA
600-639 Elm Place
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Tree Report addendum for trees in the common area.
To Whom It May Concern,
This letter is in addition to the Elm Place HOA Tree Report dated December 30, 2020 and
addresses the City of Edmond's response to mitigation techniques to reduce tree hazards. It is
difficult to reach the tree canopies of some trees without heavy equipment. Using spikes to
access the canopy of diseased trees is the most feasible action.
Industry Tree Care Standards state the use of spikes for tree removals only and not to be used on
trees for preservation. Alder trees (Alnus rubra) 101 and 102 are not suited for preservation and
cannot recover from their Phytophthora disease. The damage spikes will incur on Alders 101
and 102 is insignificant to the fungal infection that is killing the trees. The goal of this case is
about mitigating the tree hazards rather than preservation.
In conclusion, climbing spikes may be used to reduce the risk of failure for Alder trees 101 and
102. These two Alder trees are badly diseased and in the process of decline without chance of
recovery, therefore using spikes for tree climbing is not a concern for the health of Alder 101 and
102.
Please reply if you have questions.
Thank you,
J-='Inu O,�
Lonnie Olson, Owner
ISA Certified Arborist (PN-5427A) exp 12/31/2021
Qualified Tree Risk Assessor (4697) exp 7/23/2024
A-1 TREE
SERVICE
CONSERVATION
FOR ALL YOUR TREE CARE NEEDS
PO Box 1615
Monroe, WA 98272
425-883-3446
O Schedule
❑ UG Locate
❑ Permit
❑ A. T.
❑ Neighbors Per.
Tax Rate %
Proposal Submitted To:
'
Date: o z/ I /ZI Time: AM / M
*Proposal valid for 30 days from the date listed above
Address: E I m PI PLl,
iz of m 6v�d 5 gyc)Z D
Phone Number(s): 425 206 360
� - 661- �-tLOH b
UBI# 604350049, Contractors License # 1TREETS811BB, L&I 677 708-00, Insurance # CNT019901
We hereby submit specifications and estimates for:
d
!ECMNiykQ
l'&
S r hW=1
cIVWWYQ, INN5130C)
r �-lyh
wilt, C)n -F usfyiQ
a- -2-
10 so + I a}t
l 8(30fiIa�
� OfiI
3.4% FEE ON ALL CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS*
Notes:
Equipment Needed for Job:
❑ Red Trailer ❑ Pole Pruners
❑ Boards ❑ Orchard Ladder
❑ Stump Grinder ❑ Handcarts
Stump Grinding
*Price variance depending on root ball
exposure and root chasing*
*Company not responsible for any
damages to irrigation/drainage/invisible
fencing lines that are not made known
in writing to the main office*
*Landscaping will not be replaced by
Company when chasing roots is
requested*
0[creptance Of ProponC
We Propose hereby to furnish labor, complete in accordance with above
specifications, for the sum of: $
The above prices, specifications and conditions
are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You Employee Sig
are authorized to do the work specified.
Customer Email:
Customer Signature:
It is ok to perform work when customer is not at residence
CUSTOMER AGREES TO PAY FOR SAID TREE SERVICE IN FULL UPON COMPLETION
Lonnson Arbor Care
2616 1691h Street SE
Bothell, WA 98012
425-891-1741
lonnson@juno.com
December 30, 2020
Elm Place HOA
600-639 Elm Place
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Tree Report for Trees in the Common Area.
To Whom It May Concern,
This report addresses concerns about a group of Red Alder trees (Alnus rubra) on the east side of
the neighborhood, along 7th Ave. S, Edmonds. Many of the Alder trees have disease and
structural problems. This report includes pictures and a map of the trees and their locations. The
last pages are the ISA Tree Risk Assessment Forms about the subject trees.
On December 21, 2020, I inspected, measured, tagged, and took pictures of eight Alder trees.
Subject trees were tagged with an engraved metal strip. A couple of the Alder trees are infected
with Bleeding Phytophthora (fungal) cankers near the trunk base which will lead to death of the
tree. The other Alders have structural problems that require pruning to mitigate risk. The trees
target 7th Avenue and a residential home.
Tree Inspection List (Alnus rubra):
Tag # DSH*
Condition
101 15. 1
TSigns of large Phytophthora canker activity near the base. 20% live crown ratio.
Tree will require removal because of advancing disease.
102 11.8", 14.0"
Signs of large Phytophthora canker activity near the base of the smaller trunk.
Vulnerable to windthrow if exposed. Tree will require removal because of advancing
disease and canopy exposure.
103 14.5"
Tree has asymmetric canopy to the east with poorly attached branching structure.
Canopy pruning is recommended to reduce over -extended branches and alleviate their
leverage load.
104 17.5"
Tree has asymmetric canopy to the southeast. No signs of decay or disease. Some
canopy pruning recommended to reduce asymmetric loading.
105 18.7"
Tree has asymmetric canopy to the east and south. Leans on the neighboring tree,
rubbing trunks. No signs of decay or disease. Some canopy pruning recommended to
reduce asymmetric loading.
106 21.0"
Tree has a 10-15 degree lean to the south with an asymmetric canopy to the south.
Trunk is rubbed from neighboring tree. No signs of decay or disease. Some canopy
runing recommended to reduce asymmetric loading.
107 19.5"
The trunk kinks at a 30-degree lean and asymmetric canopy to the southeast. No
signs of decay or disease. Some canopy pruning recommended to reduce asymmetric
loading.
108 17.3"
Tree has asymmetric canopy to the east. No signs of decay or disease. Some canopy
pruning recommended to reduce asymmetric loading.
*Diameter at Standard Height; tree trunks measured 4 '/z feet from the ground.
The picture on the left is the base of
Alder tree 101. The area within the
yellow is diseased with bleeding
Phytophthora fungal canker. The black
spots are the fungal fruiting bodies. This
disease will encircle the trunk and girdle
the tree, leading to death.
The picture on the left looks at the base of
Alder trees 101 and 102. The area within
the yellow shows Phytophthora disease
along the crotch of tree # 102. These
advancing cankers will kill both trees.
There are no control methods for
Phytophthora disease.
2
Alder tree 107 is pictured on the left. The
yellow arrow indicates the abrupt bend in
the trunk. The upper part of the trunk
leans at a 30-degree angle toward the
roadway. The canopy needs pruning to
reduce the load at the trunk bend.
The picture on the left shows the trunks of
Alder trees 105 and 106. Both trees have
asymmetric canopies which cause them to
lean together about 10-15 degrees. The
yellow arrow shows an area where the
trunks are rubbing. Canopy pruning is
needed to reduce the load on these two
trunks and alleviate rubbing movement.
3
k.
{ Y
ELM PL
GC
GC
W
it
0 10 20ft
101
12-
2-
ELM PL W
12-162
1% Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client Elm Place HC Date Dec. 21. 2020 Time 10:00am
Address/Tree location 626 Elm Place. Edmonds 9AD70 Tree no. 101 Sheet 1 of 7
Tree species Alnus rubrzz dbh 1S.1" Height 80' Crown spread dia. 20'
Assessor(s) Lonnie Olson PN-5427A Tools used Basic Inspection tools Time frame 2 years
r .tint A
Targetro ne
0 �nq
E
Targetdescrlptlon
Target protection
�d
I
41
L
626 Elm Place
None
%
4
no
no
2
4
History of failures None "a6 Topography Flat❑Slope® 10 %Aspect SW
Site changes None® Grade change❑Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limbed volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ❑_% Describe
Prevailing wind direction NE Common weather Strong winds Ice Snow Heavy rain® Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low 0 Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) Ca None (dead)❑ Normal _% Chlorotic_% Necrotic_%
Pests/Biotic Phytophthora Canker Ablotic
Species failure profile Branches❑ Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected® Partial Full❑ Wind funneling Relative crown size Smallla Medium❑ Large❑
Crown density Spa rse❑ Normal Dense❑ Ilsreriorbranches Few❑ NonnalCa Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑
Recent or expected change in load factors No:
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR 20 % Cracks ❑ Ughtningdamage ❑
Dead wigs/branches❑ _%overall Max. dia. _ Codominant ❑ Induded bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia._ Weakanachmems❑ Cavity/Nesthole%circ.
ver O-extended branches❑ Previous branch failures❑ Similar branches present❑
Pruning history Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galh/Buds ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Crown cleaned Cl Thinned O Raised ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Uon-tailed ClCo M ❑ Heartwood dew ❑ y
Flush cuts ❑ .,her
Responsegrowth
Small canopy for its height Condition(s) ofconcern None
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
r
ct N/A® Minor ❑ Moderate❑ SigMficant❑ Load on defect N/A Ill Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Send-0
failure Improbable® Possible❑ Probable❑ Imminent❑ Ukelihoodoffailure ImIxoNbleW Possible❑ Pmbable❑ Inuninens❑—Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar —
gbark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color❑ Collar buried/Not visible❑ Depth Stem girdling®t stems ❑ Included bark❑ Cracks❑ Dead ❑ Decay❑ Conks/Mushroo—Mmage/decay❑ Cankers/Galls/BUdsO Sap ooze❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity❑_%cirt.mage❑ HeartwooddecayO Conks/Mushrooms❑ Cracks Cut/Damagedmcl Distance from trunk_
Cavity/Nest hole _ %circ. Depth _ Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑
Lean_' Corrected? Response growth None
Response growth None Phytophthora activity around the root collar
Condition(s) of concern Phytophthora canker leads to death Condition(s)ofconcern
Part Size 12.0"dia Fall Distance 60 Part Size IS.O"dia Fall Distance So'
Load on defect N/A❑ Minor Cl ModeateW Significant❑ Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ ModeafeW Signifiam❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable0 Possible® Probable❑ imminent❑ Ukeklroodoffailue Improbable❑ PossibleW Probable❑ Imminent❑
Page I of 2
Rico f�ro"nri»Hnn
li;•
�m
Moon, I. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
Likelihood of Impact
of Failure
Ve low
Low
Medium
High
Imminent
Unlikely
I Somewhat likely
Likely
Very likely
Probable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Possible
Unlikely
Unlikel
Unlikely
somewhat likely
Improbable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Matrix 2. Risk radrse marrix.
Likelihood of
Failure g 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
Phytophthora disease around the root collar will kill the tree
within a couple years. No control for this type of fungal activity.
North
0
Mitigation options
L. _Remove tree down to a tall stump. Make stump not tall enough to reach house. Residual risk Low
2. Residual risk _
3. Residual risk _
4. Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate M High ❑ Extreme ❑
Overall residual risk None ❑ Low ® Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval None
Data ®Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ONo ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations ®None ❑Visibility ❑Access Mines Moot collar buried Describe
Thb aamnesl as pm4u<ad Eydse Imcrnarinml5aieryof Asb"ricWnve N$A)-2011
Page 2 of 2
0
ISA. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client Elm Place HC Date Dec. 21. 2020 Time SO:OOam
Address/Tree location 626 Elm Place Edmonds 98020 Tree no. 102 Sheet 2 of 7
Tree species Alnus rubro dbh 11.8", 14.0" Height $0' Crown spread dia. 30'
Assessor(s) Lonnie Olson PN-5427A Tools used Basic Inspection tools Time frame 2 vears
Target Assessment
T.N.1 rtm e
o
o z
Target description
Tatget,—c11on
15
aptenry
c E
Eli
2
626 Elm Place
None
X
4
no
no
2
4
She Factors
History offallures None Topography Flat❑Slope6p 10 %Aspect SW
Site changes None Qd Grade change❑Site clearing Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cros❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow❑ Compacted Pavement over roots ❑_% Describe
Prevailing wind direction NE Common weather Strong winds❑ Ice Snow Heavy rainW Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
vigor Low 0 Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal)W None (dead)❑ Normal _% Chlorotic_% Necrotic_%
Pests/Biotic Phytophthora canker Ablotic
Species failure profile Branches❑ Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected Partial Full❑ Wind funneling Relativecrownsize Small® Medium❑ Large❑
Crown density Sparse❑ Normal® Dense❑ Interior branches Few Normal ill Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑
Recent or expected change in load factors None
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR 25 % Cracks ❑ Ughtningdamage ❑
Dead twigs/banches❑ _%overall Max. dia._ Codominant❑ Induded bark
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia._ Weakanachmems❑ Cavity/Nesthole%circ.
ver O-extended branches❑ Previous branch failures Similar branches present
c
Pruning history Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galh/Buds ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Gown leaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Uon-tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood dewy ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other Responsegrowth
Small canopy for its height Condition(s)ofconcern None
Part Site Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect NIA Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Sigalf—t❑ Load on defect N/AW Minor ❑ Modeace❑ Signglant❑
Likelihood of failure ImprobablelA Possgtle❑ Probable❑ Imminent❑ Ukelihoodoffailure ImprobabkW Possible Probable Immnent❑
—Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar —
l>ead/Missingbark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color❑ Collar buded/Not visible❑ Depth Stem girdling❑
Codominant stems ® Included bark® Cracks❑ Dead ❑ Decay❑ Conks/MushroomsQ
Sapwooddamage/decay❑ Cankers/Galls/BudslO Sap ooze❑ Ooze ® Cavity❑_%circ.
Ughtningdamage❑ Heartwooddecay❑ Conks/Mushtooms❑ Cracks❑ Cut/Damagedmots❑ Distance from trunk_
Cavity/Nest hole _%circ. Depth_ Poortaper❑ Root plate lifting Soil weakness
Lean_' Corrected? Response growth None
Response growth None Canker around the root collar
Condition(s) ofconcem Canker will girdle the trunk Con dMon(s)of concern
IV
Part Size 12.0' dia Fall Distance 60' Part Size 14.0" dia Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A❑ Minor Cl Moderate@ SignifiantO Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Mod-WW Sgnificam❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable0 Possible❑ Probabk� Imminent❑ Likelihood offailure Improbable❑ Possible0 Probable 6l Imminem❑
Page I of 2
Risk Categorization
Whole tree failure
�m
Matrix I. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
Likelihood of Impact
of Failure
Ve low
Low
Medium
High
Imminent
Unlikely
I Somewhat likely
Likely
Very likely
Probable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Possible
Unlikely
1-UnlikelyUnlikely
Somewhat likely
Improbable
Unlikely
I Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Moody 2. Risk rating matrix.
Likelihood of
Failure g Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible
Minor
significant
Severe
Very likely
to
Moderate
High
Extreme
Likely
Low
Moderate
Nigh
High
Somewhat likely
Low
Low
Modeate
Moderate
Unlikely
Low
Low
Low
Low
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Phyttophthora fungal activity around the trunk base, root collar,
will lead to girdling and death within a couple years.
North
0
Mitigation options
1, Remove down to a tall stump. Stump should not be tall enough to reach the house. Residual risk Low
2. Residual risk _
a. Residual risk _
4. Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate M High ❑ Extreme ❑
Overall residual risk None ❑ Low M Moderate ❑ High El Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data ®Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No Oyes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations ®None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe
Thb aamnesl as pm4u<ad Eydse Iaernaliensl5aieryof A,b"ncWnve n$A)-201T
Pogo 2 0( 2
r-
1% Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client Elm Place HIC Date Dec. 21, 2020 Time 10:00am
Address/Tree location 626 Elm Place, Edmonds 9AD70 Tree no. 103 Sheet 3 of 7
Tree species Ainus rubro dbh 14.5" Height 50' Crown spread dia. 30'
Assessor(s) Lonnie Olson PN-5427A Tools used Basic Inspection tools Time frame 2 years
r .rim A
Target ro ne
0ccap.ncy
E
Targ tdescrlptlon
Target protection
L
7th Ave. S
None
X
3
no
no
2
4
History of failures None "a6 Topography Flat❑ Slope® 10 %Aspect SW
Site changes None® Grade change❑Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume❑ Saturated El Shallow❑ Compacted Pavement over roots ❑_% Describe
Prevailing wind direction_ Commonweather Strongwinds❑ Ice❑ Snow❑ Heavyrain6Q Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑ Normal tO High O Foliage None (seasonal)® None (dead)❑ Normal _% Chlorotic_% Necrotic_%
Pens/Biotic Ablotic
Species failure profile Branches❑ Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected® Partial [3 Full❑ Wind funneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium® Large❑
Crown density Sparse❑ Normal® Dense❑ Ilneriorbranches Few❑ Normai® Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑
Recent or expected change in load factors None
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
Unbalanced crown ® LCR 40 % Cracks ❑ Ughtningdamage 0
Dead twigs/brenches ❑ _%overall Max. dia. _ Codominant ❑ included bark O
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia._ Weakanachmems® Cavity/Nesthole%dre.
Over -extended branches® Previous branch failures Similar branches present
c
Pruning history Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galh/Buds O woo Sapd damage/decay O
Crown leaned 0 Thinned ❑ Raised O
Reduced ❑ Topped M Uon-tailed ❑ Corks; ❑ Heartwood dewy 0
Flush cuts ❑ Other Responsegrowth
None Condition(s) ofconcern Over -extended branches poorly attached to
the stem.
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size 10.0" dia Fall Distance 40'
Load on defect N/A® Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant❑ Load on defect N/A Minor O ModerxteEO iignigont❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable® Possible❑ Probable❑ Imminem0 Likelihood of failure Improbabk0 Pasibk® Probable Immmem❑
—Trunk— — Roots and Root Collar —
Dead/Missing bark O Abnormal bark texture/color❑ Collar burled/Not visible Depth Stem girdling❑
Codominant stems O Included bark Cracks Dead 0 Decay Conks/Mushrooms0
Sapwood damage/decay
Cankers/Galls/Buds❑ Sap ooze Ooze ❑ CavityO_%circ.
Li
Heartwood decay0 Conks/Mushrooms❑ Cracks❑ Cut/Damaged roots❑ Distance fromtrunk
Cavity/Nest hole _%circ. Depth_ Poor taper Root plate lifting 0 Soil weakness
Lean Corrected? Response growth
Response growth Condition(s) of concern None
Condition(s)ofconcem None
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/a® Minor O Moderate❑ SignificantO Load on defect N/A® Mina, ❑ Moderate❑ Significam0
Likelihood ofiailure Improbable® Posdhle❑ Probabk0 Imminent❑ Ukelihapd offailure Improbable{@ Possible0 Probable❑ Imminem0
Page I of 2
Rico f�ro"nri»Hnn
Matrix i. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
Likelihood of Impact
of Failure
Ve low
Low
Medium
High
Imminent
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Very likely
Probable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Possible
Unlikely
Unlikel
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Improbabfe
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Matrix 2. Risk radrm matrix -
Likelihood of
Failure g Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible
Minor
significant
Severe
Very likely
to
Moderate
High
Extreme
Likely
Low
Moderate
High
High
Somewhat likely
Low
Law
Moderate
Moderate
Unlikely
Low
Low
Low
Low
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Branches are over -extended and likely to fail under load
conditions like snow or full -leaf and heavy rain.
North
0
Mitigation options
L. Reduce the most lateral, over -extended branches over the roadway. Residual risk Low
2. Residual risk _
3. Residual risk _
4. Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating low M Moderate ❑ High O Extreme O
Overall residual risk None ❑ Low III Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data MFinal ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ONo OYes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations ®None OVisibility OAccess OVines ❑Root collar buried Describe
Tho mmnesl as pm4u<ad Eydse Imcrnarinml5aieryof Asb"ricWnve N$A)-201T
Psge 2 0( 2
0
ISA. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client Elm Place HOA Date Dec. 21, 2020 Time 10:00am
Address/Tree location 626 Elm Place, Edmonds 98020 Tree no. 105 Sheet 4 of 7
Tree species Alnus rubrp dbh 17.5" Height 80' Crown spread dia. 40'
Assessor(s) Lonnie Olson PN-5427A Tools used Basic Inspection tools Time frame 2 years
Target zone
.ei
oon�.,xv,
Target description
Tars"protection
3
_avedurol
'RB
Fk
aEIT
1 7th Ave.S
None
X
3
no
no
z
3
4
History offailures None Topography Flat❑Slope® 30 %Aspect SW
Site changes None® Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed loll hydrology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume❑Saturated❑ Shallow❑ Compacted❑ Pavement over roots0_% Describe
Prevailing wind direction NE Common weather Strong winds ❑ Ice ❑ Snow ❑Heavy min to Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low❑ Normal W High Foliage None (seasonal) 00 None(dead)❑ Normal_% Chbrotic_% Necrotic_%
Pests/Biotic Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches❑ Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe
Load Factors
Windexiamure ProtectedW Partial❑ Full❑ Windfunneling❑ Relativecrownsixe Small❑ Medium❑ LargeW
Crowndensity, SparseO Normal® Dense❑ Interiorbranches Few❑ NormalW Dense❑ Vines/Minletoe/Moss❑
Recent or expected change in bad factor None
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and
Branches —
Unbalanced crown l9 LCR-49--%
Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches ❑ _%overall Max. dia. _
Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Numbs Max di..
WeekattachmereaO CavityMesthole %circ.
Overextended branchm
Previous branch failures Similar branches present
Pmninghistory
Dead/Missing bark Cankers/Galis/Burls❑ Sapwcoddamage/dttay❑
Crown cleaned O Thinned O Raised ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped O Uon-tailed ❑
Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other
Response growth
Asymmetric crown Condition(s)ofconcern None
Pan Size 12.0" Fall Distance 50''
Part Size Fall Distance
Loadonclefect WAO Minor ❑ ModerareW Significant❑
Load on defect N/A09 Minor ❑ Modeate❑ Significmn❑
UkeliboW offallure Improbable❑ Possible® Probable Immimn,0
Likelihood offallum Imprabable0l Possible❑ PmWble ❑ Imminent0
—Trunk —
— Roots and Root Collar —
Dead/Missingbark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color❑
Collar buried/Not visible Depth Stem girdling❑
Codominant stems O Included bark Cracks
Dead ❑ Decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms❑
Sapwood damage/decay❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls Sap ooze❑
Ooze ❑ Cavity❑_%arc.
Ughtningdamage❑ HeanwooddewV13 Conks/Mushrooms O
Cracks Cut/DamagedrootsO Distance from trunk_
Cavity/Nest hole _%circ. Depth_ Poor taper
Root plate lifting Soil weakness❑
Lean IS ' Corrected? No
Response growth
Responsegrowth
Condhion(s)ofwnmrn None
CondRfon(s)ofmnmm Trunk rubs on Trunk rubs on neighboring tree
Part Size 18.0" dia Fall Distance 501
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A❑ Minor O Moderate Psl Sigrufcant❑
Load on defect N/A 19 Minor ❑ Moderate❑ SignifiontO
Lil�lihood of failure Inprobable❑ Possible1111 Probable ❑Imminent❑
Likelihood offailuM ImombableM Possible❑ Probable Inn
Page Iof2
Target
(pfger number
desoipekv,)
1
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Risk Categorization
Failure
Trrr Part Coralnonlsl
of concern
Canopy (Break
Likelihood
Likelihood of Impact
of Failure
ye low
Low
Medium
High
Imminent
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
I Likely
Very likely
Probable
Unlikely
I Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Possible
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Improbable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Matrix 2. Riik canna rota.
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible
Minor
Significant
Severe
Very likely
Low
Moderate
High
Extreme
Likely
Impact I Failure gx lmpac,j Consequences
Risk
rating
gram
Marsh 2)
Moderat e Nigh High
gomewSomewhatLow likely Low Low Moderate Moderate
North
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Alder leans on neighboring tree and rubbing the trunk. Alder's
0
lean and asymetric canopy Increases risk of whole or large part
failure.
Mitigation options
1. Canopy pruning to thin/reduce over -extended branches to alleviate load.
Residual risk Low
2.
Residual risk
3.
Residual risk
4.
Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low O Moderate W High ❑ Extreme O
Overall residual risk None O Low W Moderate O High ❑ Extreme O Recommended Inspection interval
Data W Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ONo ❑yes-Type/Reason _
Inspection limitations WNone OVisibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe
Thu gawkM was pml.sed bythe 1"nvrienJ Saiey W AdancWnve d50.) —2017 Page 2 of 2
0
1SQ Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client Elm Place HC Date Dec. 21, 2020 Time 10:00am
Address/Tree location 626 Elm Place, Edmonds 98020 Tree no. 106 Sheet 5 of 7
Tree species Alnus rubra dbh 21.0" Height 80' Crown spread dia. 40'
Assessor(s) Lonnie Olson PN-5427A Tools used Basic Inspection tools Timeframe 2vears
- Aar
Target aone
g
pan
Oc"q
rate
o m
e M1
e
£
Orgetdnrlptlon
Target Protection
z<'.r,
"
-.
E
C
E
1
7th Ave. S
None
X
3
no
no
2
4
Historyof failures None ro"V" Topography Flat❑ Slope® 10 % Aspect SW
Site changes None Grade change❑ Site clearing [3 Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ❑_% Describe
Prevailing wind direction NE Common weather Strong winds❑ Ice Snow Heavy rain® Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑ Normal ® High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal)M None(dead)0 Normal _% Chlorotic_% Necrotic_%
Pests/Biotic Ablotic
species failure profile Branches❑ Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected® Partial❑ Full❑ Wind funneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium❑ Large®
Crown density Sparse❑ Normal® Dense❑ Imedorbranches Few❑ Normal® Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑
Recent or expected change in bad factors None
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
Unbalanced crown W LC'
40 % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage 0
Dead twigs/branches ❑ _%overall Max. dia. _ Codominant ❑ included bark O
emken/Hangers Number Max dia._ Weak attachments❑ Cavity/Nest hole %arc.
Over -extended branches Previous branch failures Similar branches present❑
Pruning history Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankem/Galk/Buds ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned O Raised ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay O
Flush cuts ❑ Other m Respoegrowth
Asymmetric canopy Condition(s) of concern None
Part Size 12.0" dia Fall Distance so, Pan Size Fall Distance
Load on defect NIA Min. ❑ Moderate® Significam❑ Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ significant❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible Lg Probable Imminent Ukelihoodoffeilure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable❑ Imminent❑
—Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar —
Dead/Missingbark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color❑ Collar buried/Not visible Depth Stem girdling❑
Codominant stems O Included bark Cracks Dead ❑ Decay El Conks/Mushrooms❑
Sapwooddamage/decay❑ Cankers/Galls/Buns❑ Sap ooze❑ ooze O Cavity ❑_%circ.
Lightning damage Heanwooddecay❑ Conks/Mushrooms❑ Cracks Cut/Damaged roots Distance from trunk_
Cavity/Neri hole _ %circ. Depth Poor taper O Root plate lifting O Soil weakness ❑
Lean-1rL' Corrected? No Response growth
Response growth None
Condition(s) ofconcem Trunk rubs against neighboring tree CondMon(s)of conrern
Part Size 20.0" dia Fall Distance 50' Part Size Fall Distance
Load an defect N/A❑ Min. ❑ Moderate§l SlgnikantO Load on defect N/AM Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant❑
LiIxIBlood oifailure Improbable❑ Possihle� Probable❑ Imminm[❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable® Possible❑ Probable❑ Imminent❑
Page loft
Risk Categorization
�111�
U
pill
OHIO
oil
I
■
Matrix I. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
Likelihood of Impact
of Failure
ye low
Low
Medium
High
Imminent
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Probable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likelyPossible
A�Ukely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikety
Improbable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
unlikely
Matrix 2. Risk ravine matrix.
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible
Minor
Significant
Severe
Very likely
Low
Moderate
High
Extreme
Likely
Low
Moderate
Hign
High
Somewhat likely
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Unlikely
tow
Low
Low
Low
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Alder's lean and asymmetric canopy increases the risk of whole
tree or large part failure.
Nonh
0
Mitigation options
t. Prune canopy to thin/reduce over -extended branches to alleviate load. Residual risk Low
2. Residual risk
3. Residual risk
4. Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate 0 High O Extreme O
Overall residual risk None ❑ Low M Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme O Recommended inspection interval
Data ®Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ONo ❑Yes-Type/Reason _
Inspection limitations ®None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe
Thu daurhen was poJuad byrhr rmcrvriaul5ocieryo(A,boricWtwe (I5A) - ipl)
Page 2 of 2
O
1% Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client Elm Place HOA Date Dec. 21,202 Time 10:00am
Address/Tree location 626 Elm Place, Edmonds 98020 Tree no. 107 Sheet 6 of 7
Tree species Alnus rubra dbh 19.5" Height GO' Crown spread dia. 40'
Assessor(s) Lonnie Olson PN-5427A Toolsused Basic Inspection tools Timeframe 2vears
r�.em a«� ens
TaBe[ ro
OocuPanq
o d
E
prgatdescdpdon
Tngel,—ctlon
L�
E
g d
1
7th Ave. S
None
X
3
no
no
2
4
History of failures None "a6 Topography Flat❑ SlopeM 10 % Aspect -w—
Site changes NoneW Gradechange❑Siteclearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Rootons❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limbed volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ❑_% Describe
Prevailing wind direction N7 Common weather Strong winds Ice Snow Heavy rain® Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑ Normal W High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal)® None (dead)❑ Normal _% Chlorotic_% Necrotic_%
Pens/Biotic Ablotic
Species failure profile Branches❑ Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected® Partial Full❑ Wind funneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium® Large❑
Crown density Sparse❑ Normal® Dense❑ Imedorbranches Few❑ Normal® Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑
Recent or expected change in load factors None
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
Unbalanced vown ® L C R 30 % Cracks ❑ Ughtningdamage ❑
Dead twigs/branches ❑ _%overall Max. dia. _ Codominant ❑ Induded bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia._ Waskanachments❑ Cavity/Nesthole%arc.
ver O-extended branches❑ Previous branch failures Similar branches present
c
Pruning history Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galh/Buds ❑ wood Sapdamage/decay ❑
Crown leaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Uon-tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood dewy ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other Responsegrowth
Asymmetric canopy Condition(s) ofconcern None
Part Size 12.0" dia Fall Distance 40 Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate® Signifir-t❑ Load on defect N/A® Minor ❑ Moderace❑ Signglont❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ PossbleW Probable❑ Imminent❑ Ukelihoodoffailure ImprobabkOl Possible❑ Probable❑ Imrm—C!
—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/Buds❑ Sap core Ooze ❑ Cavity 0_%circ.
Ughtningdamage❑ Heartwooddecay❑ Conks/Mushrooms❑ Cracks❑ Cut/Damagedroots❑ Distance from trunk_
Cavity/Nest hole _%circ. Depth_ Poor taper Root plate lifting Soil weakness
Lean 30 • Co"cted? No Response growth
Response growth None
Condition(s) of concem
Abrupt bend and lean with the trunk^dMon(s) of concern
Part Size 18.0" Fall Distance 40 Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant® toad on defect N/A® Minor ❑ Moderate❑ significant❑
Likelihood of (allure ImpmbaNeO Possible gl Probable❑ Imminmt0 IgreNrood offailure Imprabable0 Possible❑ Probable❑ Imminent❑
Page I of 2
Rico f�ro"nri»Hnn
�m
Matrix I. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
Likelihood of Impact
of Failure
Ve low
Low
Medium
High
Imminent
Unlikely
I Somewhat likely
Likely
Very likely
Probable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Possible
Unlikely
Unlikel
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Improbable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Mauer 2. Risk rad- matrix.
Likelihood of
Failure g Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible
Minor
Significant
severe
Very likely
Low
Moderate
High
Extreme
Likely
Low
Moderate
Nigh
High
Somewhat likely
Low
Law
Moderate
Moderate
Unlikely
Low
Low
Low
Low
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Abrupt bend in the trunk and asymmetric canopy put load
stresses on the main stem and trunk.
Nordi
0
Mitigation options
L. Prune canopy to thin/reduce branching to alleviate load weight. Residual risk Moderate
2. Remove down to a tall stump. Residual risk Logy
3. Residual risk
4. Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ® Extreme ❑
Overall residual risk None ❑ Low M Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data ®Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ONo ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations Ill ❑Visibility ❑Access [Wines ❑Root collar buried Describe
This 4almnesl as pm4urM Eydse Insernarinnsl5mieryof Asb"ricWnve n$A)-2011
Pogo 2 of
ISA. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client Elm Place HOA Date Dec. 21, 2020 Time 10:00am
Address/Tree location 626 Elm Place- Edmonds 98020 Tree no. 108 Sheet 7 of 7
Tree species Alnus rubra dbh 17.3" Height 60, Crown spread dia. 40'
Assessor(s) Lonnie Olson PN-5427A Tools used Basic Inspection tools Time frame 2 years
Target Assessment
E
Targetdescrlpdon
Targel —11on
Target zo ne
0—Panty
ae
2
7th Ave.S
None
X
3
no
no
2
4
Site Factors
Historyoffallures None Topography Flat❑Slope® 10 %Aspect SW
Site changes None® Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Rcotcuts❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow❑ Compacted Pavement over roots❑_% Describe
Prevailing wind direction NE Common weather Strong winds❑ ice Snow Heavy rain IN Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑ Normal M High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal)® None(dead)CI Normal _% Chlorotic_% Necrotic_%
Pens/Biotic Ablotic
Species failure profile Branches❑ Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected® Partial Full❑ Wind funneling Relative crown sire Small❑ Medium® Large❑
Crown density Sparse❑ Normal® Dense❑ Inreriorbranches Few❑ Normal® Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑
Recent or expected change in load factors None
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
Unbalanced vown ® LCR 40 % Cracks ❑ Ughtningdamage ❑
Dead twigs/banches❑ _%overall Max. dia._ Codominant0 Included bark
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia._ Weakamchmems❑ Cavity/Nesthole%circ.
ver O-extended branches❑ Previous branch failures Similar branches present❑
Pruning history Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galh/Buds ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Uon-tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood dewy ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other Responsegrowth
Asymmetric canopy Condition(s)ofccm None
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A Minor ❑ Moderate® Sigalficant❑ Load on defect N/A Minor ❑ Mod""o Signillant❑
arLikelihood olhilure Improbable❑ Possible® Probable❑ Imminem❑ Likelihood of failure ImprobableFD Possible❑ Probable❑ Immmem❑
—Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar —
Dead/Missingbark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color Collar buded/Not visible Depth Stem girdling❑
Codominant stems ❑ Included bark Cracks❑ Dead ❑ Decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms❑
t
Cankers/Galls/Buds❑ Sap ooze❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity❑_%circ.
Ughtningdamage❑ Heartwooddecay❑ Conks/Mushrooms❑ Cracks❑ Cut/Damagedroots❑ Distance from trunk_
Cavity/Nest hole _%circ. Depth_ Poor taper Root plate lifting Soil weakness
Lean Corrected? Response growth
Response growth Condition(s) of concern None
Condition(s) of concem None
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect WAD Minor ID Moderate❑ Signigant❑ Load on defect N/A III Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable® Possible❑ Probable❑ Imminent❑ Ukelihaad offallure Improbable lD Possible❑ Probable❑ Imminem0
Page I of 2
Risk Categorization
li;•
�m
Matrix i. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
Likelihood of Impact
of Failure
very low
tow
Medium
High
Imminent
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Ve y ikely
Probable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Possible
Unlikely
Unlikel
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Improbable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Motrur 2. Risk rating matrix.
Likelihood of
Failure g 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
Asymmetric canopy extending over the roa tooTar.
0
North
Mitigation options
L, Prune the canopy to reduce/thin branching to alleviate load weight. Residual risk Low
2. Residual risk _
3. Residual risk _
4. Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate M High ❑ Extreme ❑
Overall residual risk None ❑ Low M Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data ®Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations ®None ❑Visibility ❑Access Mines Moot collar buried Describe
Thn mmnesl as pmau<ad Eydse Imernarinml5aieryof A,boncWnve N$A)-201T
Page 2 of 2
N
Assumptions & Limiting Conditions
1. Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles and
ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is
assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as
though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management.
2. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, I can neither guarantee nor be
responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.
3. I shall not be required to give testimony or attend court by reason of this report unless
subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee.
4. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.
5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for
any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior
expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant.
6. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed
by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news,
sales or other media, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the
consultant particularly as to value conclusions, identity of the consultant, or any reference
to any professional society or institute or to any initialed designation conferred upon the
consultant as stated in my qualification.
7. This report and values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the
consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a
stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be
reported.
8. Sketches, diagrams, 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.
9. Unless expressed otherwise: (1) information contained in this report covers only those
items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of
inspection; and (2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items
without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee,
expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question
may not arise in the future.
13
Certification of Performance & Appraisal
I, Lonnie Olson, certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that they are made in good faith.
❑ I have personally inspected the trees and the property referred to in this report and have
stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation or appraisal is stated in the
attached report and the terms of assignment.
❑ The analysis, opinions, and conclusions stated herein are my own and are based on current
scientific procedures and facts.
❑ No one provided significant professional assistance to me, except as indicated within the
report.
❑ My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that
favors the cause of the client or any other party nor upon the results of the assessment, the
attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events.
I further certify that I am a member in good standing with the International Society of
Arboriculture. I have been involved in the field of arboriculture in a full-time capacity for a
period of more than 23 years.
.Low as C' QZA<�
Signed:
14