David Muresan risk forms onlyHuckleberry Landworks
12227 Huckleberry Lane
Arlington WA 98223
To: City of Edmonds Planning
Attn: Brad Shipley
Re: Hazardous Cedar Trees
9131 184th St SW
Edmonds WA
3/31 /2021
was contacted in my capacity as an ISA Certified Arborist
David Muresan (homeowner) to assess the health and the safety
of the trees at the above address.
All of the Western Red Cedar trees on this property were
previously topped 40 to 50 years ago creating new multiple tops .
All of these Cedar trees have visible extensive trunk (see pictures)
rot due to the improper topping years ago. Two of the Cedars (4,7)
are pushing against the house. The pictures tell the story of the
Cedar trees. Bill Shipley has already made a site visit to observe
the hazardous trees surrounding the home.
Recommendation
I have identified twelve Western Red Cedars that should be
removed as soon as possible to ensure safety , liability and
damage to the house itself. Replanting as required by city tree
codes.
Thomas Boyce
ISA Certified Arborist PN 6183A
ISA Tree Risk Assessor 290
Huckleberrylandworks.com
Boyce.thomasr@gmail.com
(since 2007)
(since 2008)
Tree Survey
No.
Species
DBH
Comments J Risk
1
Cedar
18in
Cut roots,in utility lines, safety and
liability
High risk of failure
2
Cedar
24in
In utility lines,safety and liability
High risk of failure
3
Cedar
16in
In utility lines,safety liability
High risk of failure
4
Cedar
45in
Touching house,multiple tops
High risk of failure
5
Cedar
50in
2 ft off house,multiple trunks
High risk of failure
6
Cedar
45in
3ft off house,trunk rot
High risk of failure
7
Cedar
42in
Touching house ,trunk rot
High risk of failure
8
Cedar
47in
20ft from house,trunk rot
High risk of falure
9
Cedar
48in
Trifurcated ,trunk rot
High risk of failure
10
Cedar
56in
Trifurcated,trunk rot
High risk of failure
11
Cedar
52in
Bifurcated, trunk rot
High risk of failure
12
Cedar
31 in
Trifurcated ,trunk rot
High risk of failure
ISA. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
�tkj t 1 ' �V Y-e� U Date �_>^ / / 1 Time
Client �
Address/Tree location I " SW %=A "ko vl, W Tree no. !2- Sheet _ ( of .2—
Tree species dbh h Height' z Crown spread dia. D
Assessor(s) O� Cif P�j (p } Tools used V `I`4- Time frame
Target Assessment
Target zone
Occupancy
E
7
c
Target description
Target protection
r „s
; •c
_
�;
'3 =
rate
1-rare
,�
0
F
a
x
« x
~
2—occasional
3—frequent
""
u>
u
m u
4—constant
a
Q
C(77E ,vew�\
3
4
Site Factors
History of failures none yet Topography FlatE Slope❑ % 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 IN Heavy rain @ Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑ Normal @ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests/Biotic Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches❑ Trunk@ Roots❑ Describe
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full @ Wind funneling ❑ Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium 0 Large ❑
Crown density Sparse ❑ Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑
Recent or expected 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.
Codominants Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia.
Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole % circ.
Over extended branches ❑
Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned EW Raised ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑
Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
f[yab cuts ❑ Other
Response growth
lns�ee& r\;- 5 A—' �>> S Condition (s)
of concern
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate li$ Significant ❑
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible10 Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
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
Condition (s) of concern
Condition (s) of concern
C
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant M
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Page I of 2
Risk Cateeorizatinn
oil
................
................
................
................
................
................
...........................
....
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
Likelihood of Impact
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
I 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
L=
Low
Low
Low
Notes, explanations, descriptions
oil j� the
Mitigation options
2.
3.
d
North
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low *- Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme IQ
Overall residual risk None 8 Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data Winal ❑ 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) — 2017 Page 2 of 2
ISA. Basic Tree Risk AssessmentForm
Client t� Val i (A �� e h Date Time
Address/Tree location —y 6� f�10 Yty X Tree no. 64 Sheet of
Tree species C— e dcO— dbh % Pl -�Height � Crown spread dia.
Assessor(s) ' 1 O 2ci S nV C C 6 6 Tools used V A Time frame
Tareet Assessment
Target zone
Occupancy
c
c
c
3
c
Target description
Target protection
:c
3
c
3 =
s
=
rate
i-rare
$ m
mnr
c
° `=
�m
a
x
.-q
x
of
~
2—occasional
3—frequent
'+"
>
` U
u
H~
—constant
a` E
W a
2
3
4
Site Factors
History of failures L Topography FlatO Slope❑ % Aspect
Site changes None B Grade change ❑ Site clearing ❑ Changed soil hydrology ❑ Root cuts ❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe
Prevailing wind direction 5V0 Common weather Strong winds 8 Ice 8 Snow 8 Heavy rain 8 Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑ Normal 19 High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑
None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests/Biotic
Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches ❑ Trunk B Roots ❑ Describe
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ FUN Wind funneling❑
Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium d Large ❑
Crown density Sparse ❑ Normal & Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal 119 Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑
Recent or expected change in load factors
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
Unbalanced crown lO LCR 6 b %
Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches ❑ %overall Max. dig _
Codominant It Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia.
Weak attachments Il Cavity/Nest hole %circ.
Over -extended branches ❑
Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑
Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped 1W Lion -tailed ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other
Response growth
T7� �
'�"`�AI'Pk'C PS o '±Y2f1 Condition (s) of concern
o
Part Size Fall Distance 00
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant iV
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
—Trunk —
— Roots and Root Collar —
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color IN
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? T-t ill a,) e ( t
T-
'�- � ' I �''
Response growth
Response growth
`1 JJ
Condition (s) of concern
Condition (s) o concern ci
Part Size fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant O
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible � Probable $t�' Imminent ®
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Page I of 2
Y
Risk Categorization
of d� o
�MEMMEMEMMEMMEMEM
Bill'F
�gll��ll
MEN
Matrix I. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Imminent
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Very likely
Probable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Possible I
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Improbable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Matrix 2. 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
Noteir%planatigns, descriptions I
C"ni bVZ i 4ti1Yv( �j " , � l r
► c -e
1.
2.
North
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme @
Overall residual risk None @ 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 (ISA) — 2017 Page 2 of 2
ISABasic Tree Risk Assessment .Form �
Client ��\/ i �� V r if9 pate S 1 Time
Address/Tree location 1 u >4 - '4 t' Tree no. Sheet of <
Tree species dbh �O h Height J r Crown spread dia. -73
Assessor(s 1 l.�IY�cS C� Tools used Time frame
Target Assessment
Target zone
v
Q
Occupancy
�•
Target description
Target protection
S
L v
3 c
t
3 i
t.
3 X
rate
-rare
`U° «
o ti
M
own
z-occas onai
>
u
ti
3-frequent
h
F
F
a -constant
a E
Cc a
2
3
4
Site Factors
History of failures
Topography FlatM Slope❑ % Aspect
Site changes None 8 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 8 Ice R Snow 8 Heavy rain 8 Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑,` NgrmaI i High Fo iage None ( easonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests/Biotic Y i S , �-�_ `' LA�C V �' Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches❑ TrunkB Roots❑ Describe
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full@ Wind funneling❑ Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium]l Large❑
Crown density Sparse ❑ Normal M Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal 0 Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑
Recent or expected change in load factors
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
Unbalanced crown LCR_�6"' %
Cracks 09 Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches ❑ %overall Max. dia.
Codominant !Ele Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia.
Weak attachments 0 Cavity/Nest hole %circ.
Over -extended branches ❑
Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history
Dead/Missing bark Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay M
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped ilk Lion -tailed ❑
Conks ❑ Heartwood decay 0
Flush cuts ❑ Other
Response growth W +0 U
+
10&cr�U'—'E;—o .Q1C') ()
Conditions
of concern j r1' Vs���Z.� ��1:'�t�ti,�.
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size - Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant o
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable It Imminent ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Immine11#7—Trunk
—
— Roots and Root Collar —
Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/color 8
Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdliCodominant
stems [A Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑
Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushroom
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
> ' ) '� V °
Condition (s) of c ncern , �
Conditions of concern
( )
Part Size Fall Distance :3� 4-
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant O
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possiblef Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Page I of 2
�r
Risk Cateeorization
................
................
................
................
................
................
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
Very lo.T
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
Matrix 2. 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
Note explan tions es i tioas c
C.
M
1._
2.
3.
A
twk, cc;,�
North
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme 8
Overall residual risk None B Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data ®Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations BNone ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe
in options
et C� X Co�i TC
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 Page 2 of 2
�J
ISABasi Tree Risk Assessme t Form
Client ���� MAY- eS6 h Date Time
Address/Tree locatio "� 5 C p"1l0 I� S A Tree no. Sheet �_ Of
Tree species C�GV dbh Lim a n Height E0 { Crown spread dia. h>
Assessor(s) O IMG3 Zcs�f c p L i Tools used Time frame
Target Assessment
Target zone
Occupancy
�•
c
c
=
3
Target description
Target protection
L y
3
L _
L
'; =
rate
1-rare
0 ,Y4)
ray
C r
y°
�'�
x
X
pip
2—occasional
3—frequent
u >
u
IT
Fm
r~
4—constant
a. E
cc c.
a
NO
2
3
4
Site Factors
History of failures o Topography Flatlil Slope❑ % 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 directions 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/Biotic �V s'� �, C Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches❑ Trunk@ Roots[] Describe
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ FOR Wind funneling ❑ Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium"® Large ❑
Crown density Sparse ❑ NormalM Dense ❑ Interior Oranches Few ❑ NormaI0 Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑
Recent or expected change in load factors
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
Unbalanced crown AF LCR 49/0 i / Cracks W. Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches ❑ %overall Max. dia. Codominant III Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weak attachments E& Cavity/Nest hole% circ.
Over -extended branches III
Pruning history
Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
FlluAsh cuts ❑ Other Response growth
1` �`�� k' 4_0�' s Conditions) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significantly Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate[] Significant
rDead/Missing
elihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent 19 Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable 61 Imminent ❑
—Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar —
bark Abnormal bark texture/color @ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑
dominant stems i Included bark Cracks 9 Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Sapwood damage/decay IN Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ %circ.
Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay* Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk
Cavity/Nest hole 10 % circ. Depth r �` Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑
Lean ° Corrected?
Response growth
Response growth
Condition (s) of concern F i ' t Y �� i Condition (s) of concern
Part Size ) 3 Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant M Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible@ Probable M ImminentEr Likelihood of failure improbable El Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Page I of 2
6
Risk Categorization
of concern
Risk
SOMMMIMMAR
MINE:
Elmo
ME
MEMMMEMMAMEMMEMEMMI
MEAMEMIMEMEMMOMM
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
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
Matrix 2. 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
_Bojes, explanations, d scrip
t1Cc { t `i- +4-1 S.J C iCC 1r S 0
vi rh I vL {, V rat . -}-o %t
Mitiation options r(
2.
3.
4.
North
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme @
Overall residual risk None @ 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 (ISA) — 2017 Page 2 of 2
ISA
Client
Address/Tree
Tree species _
Assessor(s) _
'Bas_ic}-Tree Risk Assessment Form
)Ccvi� mue�
Time
'n,h SA
Tree no. Sheet � of Z
dbh 2 01 Height s Cr wn spread dia.
Target Assessment
Time frame
Target zone
Occupancy
�
E
Target description
Target protection
t v
3
r
3 =
t
rate
$to
c ti
o
fl-
x
m�x
2-occasional 3-frequent
i
a u
F
F
m
4-ccc
onstant
m
L E-�
cc a
Fm
O
J
c�
2
3
4
Site Factors
History of failures N u Topography FIatM Slope❑ % 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 ❑-44ormal 19 High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests/Biotic �Vv ij ro T Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches❑ Trunk@ Roots❑ Describe
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full @ Wind funneling ❑ Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium llIb Large ❑
Crown density Sparse ❑ Normal I/ Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑
Recent or expected 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 WO %overall Max. dia.
Codominant ® Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia.
o
Weak attachments � /a Cavity/Nest hole circ.
Over -extended branches ❑
Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped It Lion -tailed ❑
Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other
Response growth
Condition (s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
failure Improbable[] Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ ImminI
—Trunk —
rDead/Missinlg
— Roots and Root Collar —
bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color @
Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdli
stems IN Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑
Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushroo
Sapwood damage/decal* 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 00
Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑
Lean ° Corrected?
T) 2 S-t�i �ryS� � T I. i)
Response growth
Response growth S
Condition (s) of concern
Condition (s) of c ncern
Part Size Fall Distance r�
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant 1iiii
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible® Probable It Imminent lb A
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Page I of 2
Risk Categorization
ofconcern
Likelihood
Risk
P; rating
Bill
pill
poll
Bill
MOSi
■■MO■■ERN■■MM■■dam
No
MOMMEM
NONE
NONE=
IMMMMMIMM
MAMEMEMMENERMEME
IMMMMMIMM
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
11ME
M
���
NONE
MEMEMMEM
MEMOMMI
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
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
Matrix 2. 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•_ex lanations, de criptions
options
1.
2.
3.
a.
North
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme IN
Overall residual risk None B Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data Winal ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed []No ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations BNone ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 Page 2 of 2
Client
Address/Tree location
Tree species co
Assessor(s)
J,"*)jj. Basic Tree Risk Assessment orm
Ir Date Time
VcA r-ntPi d Tree no. Sheet of
dbh �� Height r
g_ Crown spread dia. �1C
Tools used Time frame
Tareet ASSPCCmPnt
6
v
Target zone
Occupancy
ti
3
et description
Target protection
s v
=
c
t
rate
t-rare
o m
m4
M1'Tar
m
v°
N
2-occasional
u;
u>x3-frequent
N°°
u
uIT
4-constant
a E
K O.
i
0 (;
Now
v
W.
v
NO
N Ir
2
3
4
1 Inc rouur�
History of failures 3 T E Topography FlatO Slope❑ % Aspect
SitechangesNone@ Grade change❑Siteclearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Rootcuts❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe
Prevailing wind direction w Common weather Strong winds 8 Ice B Snow 8 Heavy rain B Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑__Uormal High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑
None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
L��
Pests/Biotic YyA F �,b
Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches ❑ Trunk B Roots ❑ Describe
Load
Factors
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full 8 Wind funneling ❑
Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium l# Large ❑
Crown density Sparse ❑ Normal® Dense ❑ Interior branches Few
❑ Normal® Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑
Recent or expected change in load factors
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
Unbalanced crown E LCR %
Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches lb %overall Max. dia.
Codominant 11 Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia.
Weak attachments In Cavity/Nest hole
Over -extended branches ❑
%circ.
Pruning history
Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped Lion -tailed ❑
Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other "-i `� V t YS 44.6
Response growth
Condition (s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance r
Part Size Fall Distance %J
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
keihood of failure Improbable[] Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Likelihood of failure improbable Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
—Trunk —
rDea'od/Missing
— Roots and Root Collar —
bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color B
Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑
odminant stems Included bark 50 Cracks ❑
Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Sapwood damage/decay 01 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
Condition (s) of c ncern fV c' rt IL (='-r � L S
Condition (s) of concern
C
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant iiiii
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible® Probable I&Imminent ❑
Likelihoodoffailure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Page I of 2
Risk Categorization
Target
(Target number
or description)
�
■■■�■■■■�■■■�■■fir
MONSOON
NNEEKEEMMI100
MMENAMMENEMBOMMOM
Matrix I. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Imminent
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Very likely
Probable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Possible
I Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Improbable
I Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Matrix 2. 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
No,,e� la v t pns, c escriptions
i� t
Mitieation options ,4A -
__
f
North
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Overall tree risk rati, g Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme @
Overall residual risk None @ 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 (ISA) — 2017 Page 2 of 2
_IS. Basic Tree Ren Risk AssessmForm 01
Client ���V ► ' ' ` U � f- PL D to Time
Address/Tree location ` r � F W h'l k VY Tree no. � _ Sheet of
Tree speciesy- dbh Height b Crown spread dia. _
Assessor(s) G ( '� A Tools used V 'AF Time frame
Target Assessment
Target zone
Occupancy
r
B
c
Target description
Target protection
c
t v
; c
c
r _
c
c
=
rate
o-rare
$ W
m
c M1
° —
F to
m
6�y0Ln
.0
x
� N
x
a
2-occasional
3-frequent
m O
N
H
F@
F
F
4—constant
a E
n
h��
2
3
4
Site Factors
History of failures C Topography Flatf Slope❑ % Aspect
Site changes None B Grade change ❑ Site clearing ❑ Changed soil hydrology ❑ Root cuts ❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots % Describe
Prevailing wind direction �'>W Common weather Strong winds 9 Ice 8 Snow 8 Heavy rain B Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑ Normal 5 High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests/Biotic �\Y_ 9� -�— Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches ❑ Trunk B Roots ❑ Describe
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full B Wind funneling ❑ Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium irLarge ❑
Crown density Sparse ❑ Normal® Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal4 Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑
Recent or expected 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 01 Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weak attachments Aff Cavity/Nest hole %circ.
Over -extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped V Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth
. ; e 1?9e 4 Q 0 Condition (s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance ` Part Size -2 — ��� Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significanft Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ SignificantW'
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable Or Imminent ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable 4 Imminent ❑
—Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar —
Dead/Missing bark It Abnormal bark texture/color B Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑
Codominant stems Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Sapwood damage/decay It Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ %circ.
Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decaye- Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk
Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑
Lean o Corrected?
Response growth
Response growth
CCondition (s) of concern
Condition (s) of concern
Part Size 3 Fall Distance 3l? Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant O Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ® Probable � Imminent ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Page I of 2
Risk Cateeorization
MERE
MMERENNEERNMEMENNIM
EMNEENNEMENNUMMOMMI
MENORMEENNEMENME
MONOMMI
NEMENNEEMOMEMENE
NNOM
moon
mono
00001100
Matrix /. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
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
Matrix 2. 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
Mitigation options
1. V VV., "V
2.
3.
a.
North
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme 8
Overall residual risk None B Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data ®Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations BNone ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 Page 2 of 2
!0
ISA Basi Tree Risk AssessmentT4?
orm
Client a v' ; 5 V 1 J y e sotx Date -5/ / Time
Address/Tree location q ( i 1''! ui - W0 A- Tree no. ire Sheet i of
Tree species ' ea r dbh i �t /Height { �3! Crown spread dia. ~�
Assessor(s)_ h•� 4S "ROl CC 6s7 13 Tools used U'TA Time frame
Tareet Assessment
Target zone
�
Occupancy
n.
£
c
= m
c
=2
S
rate
$ ap
c M1
o_
c'
Target description
Target protection
3
&
3=
3 X
2-occasional
M'
u
m
��.4
x
mti
3—frequent
R c
m
r
H
4—constant
a £
cc a
1
V
I
it
Vc
�J
2
3
4
�} Site i-actors
History of failures No F � � Topography FlatE Slope❑ % Aspect
Site changes None B Grade change ❑ Site clearing ❑ Changed soil hydrology ❑ Root cuts ❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited v inep Saturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe
Prevailing wind directiorL� Common weather Strong winds 8 Ice 8 Snow 8 Heavy rain B Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑ Normal Mir High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic
Pests/Biotic I' Yam\ k Ty T Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches ❑ Trunk B Roots ❑ Describe
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full @ Wind funneling ❑
Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium IF Large ❑
Crown density Sparse ❑ Normal if Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑
Normal WDense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑
Recent or expected change in load factors
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and Branches —
Unbalanced crown fib` LCR %
Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches ❑ %overall Max. dia.
Codominant-01 Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia.
Weak attachments lW Cavity/Nest hole %circ.
Over -extended branches ❑
Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑
Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other
Response growth
Condition (s)
of concern
Part Size 2, Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant%
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable j' Imminent ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
—Trunk —
— Roots and Root Collar —
Dead/Missing bark ® Abnormal bark texture/color 8
Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑
Codominant stems a Included bark ❑ Cracks (P
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 a
Condition (s) of concern
Condition (s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance 2
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant M
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant ❑
LikelihoodOffailure Improbable❑ Possible Probable Imminent ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Page I of 2
Risk Categorization
. .Risk
rating
Bill
111
I.
Mono
■■■■■'■■■M
EMON1
■■■■■AMMU■'■■
MEMO._
00011001
■■ENS-Ma■ool■�■M■
Mm
■■■■NAM■UMN■■NOMMON
■
■■[■■
■■■Z
t
■
■■
■
!■■■■
■■,■■
■■■
■
■
■■
■.�■■■■
MONIMMIN
■■!■■■■■■■■■■■■■■=
■■■■
■
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
Very low
Low
Medium
High
Imminent
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Very likely
Probable
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Likely
Possible
I Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Somewhat likely
Improbable
I Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Unlikely
Matrix 2. 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
North
1• K +ti(O- ✓ P S c c Residual risk
2 Residual risk
3. Residual risk
4. Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme I9
Overall residual risk None 8 Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data BFinal ❑ 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) — 2017 Page 2 of 2
IsAt Baso C Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client GVl)Y e�h Date �/ �/ 2 Time
Address/Tree loca 'on (I j 3 I 19,111, SA • 5)bU /K o kA ' S W Tree no. i/ Sheet / of 2—
Tree species eRCk�- dbh 5r i h Height 65 r Crown spread dia.
Assessor(s) 1 W PI 5 IP N 6 t 3 Tools used YI-X Time frame
Target Assessment
Target zone
occupancy
c
c
c
3
c
Target description
Target protection
t
3 c
r
3=
c
'3 =
rate
1-rare
0 m
m
c
F
a
x
x
2—occasional
` L
to
m
ti
R
m�
3—frequent
u
N u
I�
F
H~
4—constant
a 0
a.
L Is
c
t,>
3
t42
Site Factors
History of failures 0 15 E Topography FlatRl Slope❑ % Aspect
Site changes None B 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 8 Ice 8 Snow B Heavy rain B Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑_Normal It High ❑ � Foliage None (seasonal) ElNone(dead)0 Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests/Biotic' �VUy1�_ "+ a-A-ev- Jt - h,�, Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches[] TrunkB Root;[:] De ribe
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full Wind funneling ❑
Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium I& Large ❑
Crown density Sparse❑ Normal* Dense❑ Interior ranches Few[]Norm
16 Dense[]Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑
Recent or expected change in load factors A 0 V'u K C -2 -1 -b- "I^ k
V-a
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
— Crown and
Branches —
Unbalanced crown 10 LCR 6 _%
Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches ❑ %overall Max. dia.
Codominant B 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 W Lion -tailed ❑
Conks ❑ Heartwood decay I$
Flush cuts ❑ Other
Response growth
41-1 Condition (s)ofco
c rn Ib ' f.11 ' (, CV(G`� `�0 11 ct
��dAl h r /,`S� % u, i KjGt
Part Size (2 O Fall Distance n
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant#
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant iff
ailure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable 10 Imminent ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable* Imminent ❑
—Trunk —
rDead/Missing'
— Roots and Root Collar —
bark 0 Abnormal bark texture/color B
Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑
stems W Included bark ❑ Cracks 9�
Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Sapwood damage/decay 0 Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑
Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ %circ.
Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay RConks/Mushrooms ❑
I � 6 " I.
Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk
Cavity/Nest hole % circ``.,, Depth Poor taper ❑
Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑
Lean ° Corrected? PVC
Response growth
Response growth
Condition (s of concern
Condition (s) of concern
Part Size `4` all Distance`
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate Significant 0
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible N Probable r- Imminent ®
Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Page I of 2
Risk Categorization
Residual risk
Residual risk
3. Residual risk
a. Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme @
Overall residual risk None @ 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
Target
(Targetnumberor ..
Conclition(s)
Likelihood
Matr 2)
Bill
1111
lull
pill
I i
....■.■■.■....■■_
MMMMMMMMMMEMMEMMIIOO
■.....
■.........
MEN
NONE
MEMO
NONE
■.■.—
......
■.........
=
MMMMMMMMMMEMMMMMM
..■E
MOMM
NONEOW
Matrix I. Likelihood matrix
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
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
Matrix 2. 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
N es, ex lanations, description
t e �VCC L,,3c5
GZ 1't.ih,-VACIL —a
a :t 1r
Mitigation options c
1.
Gh' yoL�S iGct '
by W-�-i-�•- % ��
y, rC L
This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 Page 2 of 2
Basic ree Risk Assessment Form
ISA. . i _
�(�V1'e �^ D , Z Time
Client ea
ate
Address/Tree location _ / / 8 �i ' S EJ No P,o _ Tree no./ Sheet / of
Tree species LCA (fit- dbh �7 � � f) Height Cam, � Crown spread dia.
Assessors) A ti't(a -' < c P N (,1 S 3 Tools used \/:E Time frame
Target Assessment
`w
Target zone
Occupancy
W
c
9
c
E
Target description
Target protection
-c
3
t
3 i
t
3=
rate
oc rarecasional
o m
a `m
c
c u
a
°1070
a)
x
�p ei
x
°°�° N
2—oc
3 —frequent
i
cr'i
Fm
F
F
Im
4—constant
6. E
R O.
1
0
2
3
4
Site Factors
History of failures Ne Uf
Topography Flats Slope❑ % Aspect
Site changes None M Grade change ❑ Site clearing ❑ Changed soil hydrology
Root cuts ❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow ❑ Compacted ❑
Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe
Prevailing wind directio��l l� Common weather Strong winds 8 Ice
B Snow 8 Heavy rain B Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low ❑ Normallb, HighFoliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
P
�IY\ �
Pests/Biotic 1�1� %U',1V Y6
Abiotic
Species failure profile Branches ❑ Trunk M Roots ❑ Describe
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full 8 Wind funneling ❑
Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium ❑ Large ❑
Crown density Sparse ❑ Normal 9 Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑
Normal 04 Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑
Recent or expected change in load factors I Yu -,,L r. -�"
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 1-Y. circ.
Over -extended branches ❑
Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay IN
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped W- Lion -tailed ❑
Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other
Response growth
Condition (s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant lF
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
keihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable Q' Imminent ❑
Likelihoodoffailure Improbable❑ Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
—Trunk—
rDea'd/Missing
— Roots and Root Collar —
bark Abnormal barktexture/color B
Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑
odominant stems 10 Included bark ❑ Cracksdi
Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Sapwood damage/decay 10 Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑
Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ.
Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay6P 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
Condition (s) of I I-ct
Condition (s) of concern
4ncern
Part Size Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant f
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible ® Probable OF Imminent ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
Page I of 2
1;2
Risk Cateeorizatinn
Target
(Target number
or description)
Tree part
Condition(s)
of concern
Likelihood
Consequences
Risk
ra rag
rom
atrix 2)
Failure
Impact
Failure & Impact
(from Matrix1)
a
E
3
o
>
3
°
F
v
to
S
'
m
Y
s
E
U)
J
s
>
m
no
—
c
in
let
A1ts ah
I A1
Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
Very low
F 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 I
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, explanati s, descriptions
-I� Lit V- 7 4 "— 2 +c3- 2
on options
Yip o V z --�Y- e
North
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme @
Overall residual risk None @ Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data I@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 (ISA) — 2017
Page 2 of 2