ISA Hazard Risk Form 2ISA. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client LZG Construction
Address/Tree location 23830 Edmonds Way
Tree species Douglas fir
Assessor(5) Tom Hanson, CF 23136, PN0426 TRAQ 1/22/2026
Date 1/11/2022
Tree no
dbh 40.1" Height 120'
Time frame Immediate Tools use
Target Assessment
Time 1 PM
2 Sheet 1
Crown spread dia. 30'
Tape, Hypsometer
of 1
Target zone
Occupancy
M1•
..
E
r
x
t
rate
1-rare
$ ,��,
c
F
Target description
3
d• a
e°'Lo c
3=
x
u1
z-occasional
m m
F
m
F r
d
-frequent3
u>
u
Fv
3~
4-costant
a` E
z `o
1
I Apartment Building under construction
✓
1
No
No
2
3
4
Site Factors
History of failures None noted Topography FIat9 Slope❑ % Aspect
Site changes None ❑ Grade change 8 Site clearing Changed soil hydrology8 Root cuts Describe One 12-inch root cut a14- from tree -
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe
Prevailing wind direction SW Common weather Strong winds E Ice ❑ Snow❑ Heavy rain E Describe Typical PNW conditions
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low 0 Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal 100 % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches ❑ Trunk❑ Roots 8 Describe Maior root cuts on 10-foot hioh cut bank
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial f Full ❑ Wind funneling❑
Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium ❑ Large 0
Crown density Sparse❑ Normal8 Dense❑ Interior branches Few❑ NormalE 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 70 %
Cracks ❑ Lightning7bark[01.
Dead twigs/branches ❑ %overall Max. dia.
Codominant ❑ IncluBroken/Hangers
Number Max. dia.
Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hol
Over-extended branches ❑
Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised p
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑
Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other
Response growth
Main concern(s)
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 9 Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk 2'
Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑
Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑
Lean ° Corrected?
Response growth
Response growth
Main concern(s) Probable heartwood decay evidenced by
Main concern(s) Major root cut at 10-feet , exposed at 4-feet
Butt swell extending about 10-feet.
on lip of new 10-high cut bank
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant 0 Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant M
Likelihood of failure
Likelihood of failure
Improbable ❑ Possible 0 Probable ❑ Imminent ❑'KImprobable
❑ Possible ❑ Probable 0 Imminent ❑
Page I of 2
Risk Categorization
Likelihood
E
N
a,
Consequences
Failure
Impact
Failure & Impact
(from Matrix 1)
m
°
a
--
a)
o'
+-
`-
E
3
—
3
'-
a
Le_o
Y
s
a3,
E
T
2
w
Y
it
v
c
c
G
i
c
o
Conditions
a,
^_�
+°
n
u°�p
Tar et
g
Risk
rating
of part
(from
U
Tree part
of concern
a
LL
protection
a
o
s
>"
-0
2_
c
n
,°
Y
>"
w
z
61
iz
V)
Matrix 2)
Whole
Root cuts
wholE
120'
1
None
OOOOOOO
•
OOO
OOO
•
High
1
tree
0I0I00
000�0
000
0100
010100
001010
a01o0
0100
000000000
000000
0000
00010
0
0�000
2
1
00000000
010001000
010�00
000�0
0l00
01ao0
1
0000
0000
000
0000
3
100000001000000010
010100
0000
00100
000
0000
0000
000
000
4
00�00
0000
00100
0100
Matrix I. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impacting Target
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
t Unlikely
Matrix2. Risk rating matrix.
Likelihood of
Failure &Impact
Consequences of Failure
Negligible
Minor
Significant
Severe
Very likely
I Low
Moderate
High
I Extreme
Likely
I Low
Moderate
High
I High
Somewhat likely
I Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Unlikely
I Low
I Low
Low
Low
Notes, explanations, descriptions
Maior structural root cut at lip of new cut bank construction
Mitigation options Remove Tree
Overall tree risk rating
Overall residual risk
Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High E Extreme ❑
Low 0 Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑
North
Residual risk None
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Work priority 1 E 20 30 40
Recommended inspection interval NA
Data E Final []Preliminary Advanced assessment needed NNo ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations NNone ❑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