Loading...
PLN2021-0063 Hazard tree evaluationCITY OF EDMONDS 121 5tn Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION `ne. I STJ November 15, 2021 Terry TreIoggen 710 Fir St. Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Hazard Tree Removal (PLN2021-0063) Terry, Thank you for reaching out regarding the alder trees south of your house at 710 Fir St. The alders are located near Shellabarger Creek, a type of environmentally critical area. Generally, the removal of trees or vegetation within a critical area or critical area buffer is not an allowed activity unless it involves the removal of invasive species or hazard trees pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.8. Where pruning or crown thinning is not sufficient to address the hazard, trees may be removed or converted to a wildlife snag. According to the photos and information provided, three of the alders can be maintained with some pruning and then monitored for two growing seasons (trees #1, #4 and #5). Three other alders (#2, #3 and #6) are showing visible signs of decay and dieback at the bases and tops of the trees. Maintenance is not proposed for these trees due to their current stage of deterioration; removal is the proposed mitigation. Given the health of the trees and locations relative to the existing improvements within their fall zones, removal appears to be the appropriate mitigation for these alders. A hazard tree cutting exemption is granted per ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.b with the following conditions: 1. This review only applies to the three alder trees identified in the photos and materials as #2, #3 and #6. 2. Alders #2, #3 and #6 are not candidates for wildlife habitat snags due to the advanced decay in the lower trunks and the proximity of the trees to the home and patio. They may be cut to stumps or flush to the ground. The downed wood and cuttings may be removed from the site however, stump grinding is not allowed due to the potential impacts to the creek. 3. A minimum of six replacement trees must be planted in the general vicinity of the alders consistent with the species and locations described in the attached arborist report. Replacement trees must be species that are native and indigenous to the site and a minimum of one to two inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) for deciduous trees and a minimum of six feet in height for evergreen trees as measured from the top of the root ball. 4. The replacement trees must be installed within one year of the removal of the alders. Please provide photos of each of the planted replacement trees to verify installation. If you have any questions, please let me know at either michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov or 425-771-0220. Sincerely, *�Y Mike Clugston, AICP Senior Planner Enclosures CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuildingPermit.com Land Use Application #1042064 - Hazard tree removal and pruning Applicant First Name Last Name Company Name Jennifer Wells Washington Tree Experts Number Street Apartment or Suite Number E-mail Address 9792 Edmonds Way wtetree@yahoo.com City State Zip Phone Number Extension Edmonds WA 98020 2063623380 Contractor Company Name Number Street Apartment or Suite Number City State Zip Phone Number Extension State License Number License Expiration Date UBI # E-mail Address Project Location Number Street Floor Number Suite or Room Number 710 FIR ST City Zip Code County Parcel Number EDMONDS 98020 00619400900900 Associated Building Permit Number Tenant Name Additional Information (i.e. equipment location or special instructions)_ Work Location Property Owner First Name Last Name or Company Name Terry C Treloggen Number Street Apartment or Suite Number 710 FIR ST City State Zip WOODWAY WA 98020 Certification Statement - The applicant states: I certify that I am the owner of this property or the owner's authorized agent. If acting as an authorized agent, I further certify that I have full power and authority to file this application and to perform, on behalf of the owner, all acts required to enable the jurisdiction to process and review such application. I have furnished true and correct information. I will comply with all provisions of law and ordinance governing this type of application. If the scope of work requires a licensed contractor to perform the work, the information will be provided prior to permit issuance. Date Submitted: 10/28/2021 Submitted By: Jennifer Wells Page 1 of 2 CITY OF EDMONDS MyBuildingPermit.com Land Use Application #1042064 - Hazard tree removal and pruning Project Contact Company Name: Washington Tree Experts Name: Jennifer Wells Email: wtetree@yahoo.com Address: 9792 Edmonds Way Phone #: 2063623380 Edmonds WA 98020 Project Type Activity Type Scope of Work New Critical Areas Critical Areas Review Project Name: Hazard tree removal and pruning Description of 6 Alder trees located adjacent to Shellabarger Creek. 3 have been determined to be high Work: risk and need to be removed and replaced. 3 are suitable for retention with mitigation pruning. Project Details Critical Area Information Unknown Page 2 of 2 Treloggen (Edmonds) October 18, 2021 Page 1 of 7 Washington Tree Experts 9792 Edmonds Way #123 Edmonds, WA 98020 206-362-3380 wtetree@yahoo.com To: City of Edmonds Department of Planning Client name: Terry Treloggen Street: 710 Fir St. City, Zip: Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: 6 Alder trees (Alnus rubro) located in a designated environmentally critical a rea Assignment: I was contacted by the homeowner after he reached out to the City of Edmonds and their parks arborist made a site visit. I have visually assessed 6 Alder trees located adjacent to Shellabarger Creek and following are my recommendations. Discussion (please reference attached photos and site maps): There are 6 native Alder trees in varying states of decline. The trees have been tagged and numbered. I have noted 3 trees for removal and 3 trees for retention with pruning guidelines. Alder trees as a species are short lived and considered weak wooded. #1 Diameter at standard height (DSH) = 16". Retain and monitor after 2 growing seasons or with changing conditions. Reduce canopy to mitigate risk and remove crown dieback. Remove no more than 20% live growth and branches no larger than four inches diameter. #2 DSH = 15". Remove and replace. Visible decay at the roots, dead top, and smaller than normal leaves. Suspected Phytophthora spp. Crown dieback. Likelihood of failure probable with significant consequences. #3 DSH = 24". Remove and replace. Spots at base signs of Phytophthora spp. Crown dieback/dead tops. Likelihood of failure probable with significant consequences. #4 DSH = 22". Retain and monitor after two growing seasons or with changing conditions. Reduce canopy to mitigate risk and remove crown dieback. Remove no more than 20% live Washington Tree Experts Certified Arborist Treloggen (Edmonds) October 18, 2021 Page 2 of 7 growth and branches no larger than four inches diameter. #5 DSH = 14". Retain and monitor after two growing seasons or with changing conditions. Reduce canopy to mitigate risk and remove crown dieback. Remove no more than 20% live growth and branches no larger than four inches diameter. #6 DSH = 16". Remove and replace. Significant lean from vertical toward neighboring property. Oozing on trunk is sign of Phytophthora spp. Crown dieback. Attached to old, decayed stump. Crown unbalance on lean side. Likelihood of failure probable with significant consequences. Phytophthora is a waterborne disease that favors the moist conditions of the stream close by and the saturated soils. The invasive plant disease visually identified on three trees has promoted decay. There are no effective treatments and pruning will not mitigate the hazard. These trees are mature, and their growth rate has declined so that the decay is advancing and compromising structural stability. Replace with a combination of native deciduous trees such as Vine Maple (Ater circinatum), Serviceberry (Amelenchier sp.), Cascara (Rhamnus purshiona), Douglas Maple (Ater glabrum var. douglasii) at a rate of 2:1 as per city guidelines. Procedure: To evaluate and to prepare the report I drew upon my 16 years of experience in the field and my formal education in Forestry and Arboriculture. I have been a certified arborist since 2007 and I have been tree risk qualified since 2015. 1 also followed the protocol of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for tree risk assessment while looking at the overall health of the trees and site conditions. In examining each tree, we look at such factors as: -size -vigor -root health -crown health -deadwood and hanging branches -pest and disease While no one can predict with absolute certainty if a tree will or will not fail, we can, by using scientific process assess which of the trees is most likely to fail and take appropriate action. Prepared by Washington Tree Experts Certified Arborist Treloggen (Edmonds) October 18, 2021 Page 3 of 7 Jennifer Wells ISA Certified Consulting Arborist #PN6209A ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Waiver of Liability This information represents the tree health assessment at this point in time. My findings do not guarantee future safety nor are they predictions of future event. Information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection. The inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. My fee is no way contingent upon any specified value, a result or occurrence of a subsequent event, or upon any finding to be reported. Attachments -site map -basic tree risk assessment forms Glossary Crown: the aboveground portions of a tree (Lilly 2001) DBH or DSH: diameter at breast or standard height; the diameter of the trunk measured 54 inches (4.5 feet) above grade (Matheny et ol. 1998) ISA: International Society of Arboriculture Mitigation: process of reducing damages or risk (Lilly 2001) Structural defects: flaws, decay, or other faults in the trunk, branches, or root collar of a tree. Decay: process of degradation of woody tissues by fungi and bacteria through the decomposition of cellulose and lignin (Matheny and Clark,1994) Decline: Progressive decrease in health of organs or the entire plant, usually caused by a series of interacting factors Texts Dirr, Michael A. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants, Their Identification, Ornamental Characteristics, Culture, Propagation, and Uses R. Harris, J. Clark, N. Matheny-Arboriculture, Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs. and Vines Third Edition 1999 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Handbook Washington Tree Experts Certified Arborist Treloggen (Edmonds) October 18, 2021 Page 4 of 7 N x = Trees removed = Trees retain = Approximate location of replacement trees Washington Tree Experts Certified Arborist 1� . ,,;. , fib � �?� - � • � 5 -. • Y .,iice�• .�t � � f�.,�.�'r^t7J a:. j `. r. ,-r�s. .. .; � - :. k a , �. , . s�i�'. d � '� • ,.� . . _ �•••;t � '`_� �s� - �- � �, ,� �::.• � -_ �. ut. 7) Treloggen app 10-21.pdf City of Edmonds ` Land Use Application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT C OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT C STREET VACATION I: REZONE C SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION Ot OTHER: Hazard tree removal in ECA • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD e PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION 710 Fir Street PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) PROPERTY OWNER Terry Treioggen PHONE # 425-640-6638 ADDRESS 710 Fir Street Edmonds, WA 98020 E.MAILterry-t@comcast.net FAX # TAX ACCOUNT# SEC. TwP. RNG. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY)_ 3 High risk alder trees to be ramo"d and 3 to be pruned to mitigate risk. See attached. DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) See attar:hed. APPLICANT Same as property owner PHONE# ADDRESS E-MAIL FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT Jennifer Wells Washington Tree Experts PHONE # 206-362-3380 ADDRESS 9792 Edmonds Way #123 Edmonds, WA 98020 EMAIL wtetree@yahoo.com FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this appli a ,n on the behalf of the /m/c�nc/r//a/ flisJt�ed�below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE _ 1 0/28/2 Proper wuer's Auth 1, certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washingto dM"Th Ilowing is a tructallaftorrect statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use app •ation, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes spection and pTg att dant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE 10/27/21 Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. Revised on $122112 B - Land Use Applimrion Page 1 of 1 ISA Client 1if 1( Address/Tree locati Tree species Assessor(s) l Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form _ Date 1 U K, Time Tree no. Sheet -- of dbh Height '�5 0 Crown spread dia. Time frame Tools used Target Assessment Target zone Occupancy �• a .a E r 3 = a L .- = rate 1-rare m A �? c^ F A Target description °i �'. 2-occasional �• ve on` r L4.ti 3-frequent u > A O y 2 F a - constant a. E cc n 2NJ 3 4 Site Factors History of failures �- -. } r Topography Flat Slope❑ g'o Aspect Site changes None ❑ Grade change ❑ Site clearing ❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts O Describe Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted❑ Pavement over roots % Describe C f Prevailing wind directionCommon weather Strong winds 0 Ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low [3 Normal d High ❑ Foliag\ a (seasonal}�l t 1None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic Pests R , - Abiotic Species failure profile Branches [4 Trunky RootsA Describe__, E Y Load_ Factors_ Wind exposure Protected❑ Partial0 Full KWind funneling❑ Relative crown size SmallO Mediumls� Large❑ Crown density Sparse Normalo Dense❑ Interior branches Few[] Normalo 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 7damageED]Dead twigs/branches %overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ IncluBroken/Hangers Number Max. dia.Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole Over -extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised Dead/Missing bark O Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion tailed 0 Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor O Moderateq Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable �1, Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark O Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay Q Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze Cl Cavity O % circ. Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks I.Y Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting O Soil weakness Lean ° Corrected? Response growth Response growth Main concern(s) Pr I L f r-�" n Main concer S)(7 n(s) S Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor O Moderate ❑ Significant 41, Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate O Significant Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable El Possible Probable ❑ Imminent O Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable Imminent ❑ PaaP I of i Risk Categorization rating ConclitiojJ11 Jill .. of concern ®tea , Eel % _, • c�IN WE n ccNc m • om©� C EN NJ C CCCC CC©1 0 No. Ell IN �, . • c�a�� ooWo cc •� • • '04 9 c c � �■M ® 1 OEM c ao c X X X N [01rin© oaNc �■ M M W WM ccc� acc�cc•�n©c�c� • ono • coax ono • � 00�0 ❑C00 C�O� D�OC �MM� a � X � c� � X cc�nM cocc mmm� DOWN c • ice ice can© oa�c mmm� c[Xo • cccc cc©� 000 • M M M � CCC i CCCC C Eel xEel CCCC Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood Likelihood of Impacting Target of Failure Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely MotrixZ. Risk rating 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 Mitigation options �r/ i 1 `yy 5��! 1"�C�'Tl�� +�r� Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk North Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ` Extreme ❑ Work priority 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 Y 4 ❑ Overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑\ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data 14Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations ©None ❑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 Client �rT Date Time Address/Tree,Ig�Satio Tree no. Sheet of Tree species K dbh y Height 5 15 _ Crown spread dia. Assessor(s) Time frame Tools used Target Assessment Target zone Occupancy 01 w £°E r �' L'iti rate 1-rare o ��M L10 c n- C� c Target description a •c „ c ~ r 3 x m Ln 2—occasional 3-frequent w f+ N f+ 3 V'~ 4-constant a E �a cc z e 1 �� fir. 1( 4 Site Factors History off a i I ures Topography FlatlxSlope❑ % Aspect Site changes Non e❑ Grade change Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated Shallow❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe Prevailing wind direction- Common weather Strong windsp�lce❑ Snow Heavy rairK Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low X Normal IV High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests A iotic Species failure profile Branches 0.,Trunkx Rootsyk Describe Load Factors Wind exposure Protec ed ❑ Partial ❑ Full Wind funneling ❑ Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium Large ❑ Crown density Sparse Normal K Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal o(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 jj�_L% Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ !� Dead twigs/branches KI %overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole Over -extended branches ❑ _%circ. Previous branch failures � Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised o. Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Respons growth Main concern(s) � P cz imp \%`► I G1 4- i - 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 Response growth Main concern(s) ' ��; - t-� Main concern(s) 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 ❑ Nap I of 7 Risk Categorization Conditions of part ._of concern..11aln 2) mwm�c• ccccccCEHEaHHc � MM®�M C• CE NNE C c• HIE HHHC mmm� WHEN EHEE c• HEE HERE ����■ NEEN NEEW cnn©NHHE � mmm� EECN CCCC CCU MO W NWIN ���� ccoc cco • cccc occ • � ���� NHNW EEEN cHWW NNW • � . .. OWN KNEWENNEW mmm� HENN Nccc co�H EHNH mwm� HNH c NCCN NCO NE WHEN ���� CNNN CCCC CNEH CCH c � Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood Likelihood of Impacting Target of Failure Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrix2. Risk rating 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 Mitigation options f--2—Zm C)U North Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High Extreme ❑ Work priority 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3 d 4 ❑ Overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval _ Data Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed []No ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture USA) and is intended for use by Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) arborists - 2013 Page 2 of 2 Client li-1 Address/Tree I Tree species _ Assessor(s) _ ISA. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Date Time Tree no. Sheet, l dbh�L. Height Crown spread dia. Time frame Tools used Target Assessment of -- Target zone Occupancy d £ r a"i X c 3 �' rate 1—rare $ W c = Target description 3'i .0 Lax r �i 61 2—occasional 3-frequent 41, a L) 3 " 4- constant a E n 1 �arn 1 2 3 4 Site Factors History of failures Topography FlatXSlope❑ % Aspect Site changes None Grade change Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low P(I Normal High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests Abiotic Species failure profile Branches�, Trun4 Roots Describe Load Factors Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full Wind funneling ❑ Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium Large ❑ Crown density Sparse ❑ NormaIK Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal K Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or planned change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — 7Deadtwigs/branches crown LCR% Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ �% overall Max. dia. �% Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑ers Num er Max. dia. Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Over -extended branches ❑ Pruning history Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present El Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ),711 Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth ` Main concern(s) �.r\ J �', %L_ (,r .t l' L; 1 -`J 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 \I ppCorrected? =—� L i t- 1 1 Re$poWse grbV(rth� l e onse growth Main concern(s) w -� ain concern(s) 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 D11( Imminent ❑ Improbable ❑ Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Paco I f '7 Risk Categorization ating . . of part Matrix 2) CCCC NrolRR E M RE 000� WERE EEEE RRnR EREE M� EEEE EEEE [001MR XM ME � N CC Ell C WWEE CC6 C7R RWWn M INoo101 a�cX cca1 occ X. mmm� [HERE HERE cnRR REEF ����■ EEEE EEEE cR�o RERE REED EEEE RRnR RE Ec wmm� EWE • EEEc NINE on EREI• M M 0 � CCCC CCCC CEEEll X101 M E Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood Likelihood of Impacting Target of Failure Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Motrix2. Risk rating 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, explangtioris, descriptions V�P (-- \ , a,,-,\ nl�- J r-) rA. + ► . 0 r '\ North Mitigation options R2 ( \ Residual risk I Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High 01 Extreme ❑ Work priority 1 ❑ 2 ❑ 3Y 4 ❑ Overall residual risk Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data kinal ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations ❑None ❑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