Loading...
Hickman scope.pdfScope of Work: Hickman Park Slope Restoration Prepared for: Jennifer Leach, Environmental Education and Sustainability Coordinator City of Edmonds Department of Parks, Recreation and Culture 700 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 March 6, 2018 6310 NE 74th St, Suite 201E Seattle, WA 98115 www.earthcorps.org EarthCorps © 2018 All rights reserved. Scope of Work: Hickman Park Slope Restoration /page 2 NARRATIVE SCOPE OF WORK The slope restoration project is located at Hickman Park, 23700 104th Ave NE, Edmonds WA and is approximately 1900 square feet in size with a 1:2 gradients. Based on the onsite discussion with Rich Lindsay and Jennifer Leach on February 26, 2018 and the drawings provided by the City (attached), the following specifications are provided in this scope of work: • Install 700 coir fabric using 12-inch wood eco stakes. • Install three 12-inch coir logs at the top of the slope to slow down initial sheet flow from the adjoining property. • Planting on slope = 20 trees, 100 shrubs (1-gal stock) and 356 ground covers (4- inch stock) planted medium to dense • Planting area outside slope based on drawing = 98 shrubs (1-gal stock) • Mulch rings for trees and shrubs = 0.03 cubic yards per plant of 6.5 cubic yards mulch • In the immediate vicinity of the slope, control invasive species (Himalayan blackberry and English holly) that might have adverse impacts on the long term stabilization of the slope. EarthCorps will provide the following: • An assigned project manager to coordinate with the City to schedule stated tasks, purchase materials and maintain communication throughout the project. • All erosion control materials, plant stock and mulch stated above. • Basic hand tools and as needed fall restraint systems. • Washington State Licensed Herbicide Applicator onsite as needed. • Administrative/ payroll and human resource services. Agency will provide the following: • Fence removal at the top of the slope and grading prior to start of project. • Access to the site and location to stage mulch • Copy(s) of any necessary permits SCHEDULE Spring 2018: Installation of erosion control material Fall -Winter 2018: Native plant installation Scope of Work: Hickman Park Slope Restoration /page 3 BUDGET Crew Labor $ 4,500.00 Project Management $ 1,350.00 Materials: $ 2,619.00 TOTAL of Sub -totals $ 8,469.00 Materials Handling Fee (10% of Total Materials) $ 261.90 TOTAL FEE $ 8,730.90 Sales Tax (10.3%) $ 899.28 TOTAL PAYABLE $ 9,630.18 EARTHCORPS BACKGROUND EarthCorps is a non-profit organization founded in 1993 with a mission to build a global community of leaders through local environmental service. EarthCorps provides a year- long intensive program for young adults from the US and 80 other countries to learn best practices in community -based environmental restoration and develop their leadership skills as they supervise more than 10,000 volunteers each year. Location Restoration EarthCorps' core expertise is community -based environmental restoration. We regard restoration as a process of reestablishing healthy habitat: returning a polluted or degraded environment as closely as possible to a thriving, self-sustaining ecosystem. As restoration practitioners, our goal is to expedite natural processes in rebuilding a functioning natural ecosystem. Environmental service is a uniquely effective way to build community. When people put their hands into the dirt together and see their efforts transform a threatened area into a more vibrant landscape, they forge a special bond, empowering themselves and their community. Global Leadership Based in Seattle, Washington, EarthCorps brings together emerging environmental leaders from more than 60 countries to work on projects in the Puget Sound region and Cascade Mountains. As part of EarthCorps' intensive hands-on curriculum, they learn multiple restoration techniques, try out project design and management, develop leadership and team -building skills, and help manage thousands of local volunteers on projects. Scope of Work: Hickman Park Slope Restoration /page 4 EARTHCORPS PROJECT LEAD: Bill Brosseau, Operations Director Tel: (206) 322-9296 ext. 207 Cell: (206) 255-4158 Email: bill@earthcorps.org H i GK warn Pmr4C �air�horra lam, As Is J u► Dr-a�c�,q bAl-tcb-a Dill 2-Ild-2-OPb <isti n 85' _>IoPe✓ -7 1. i (. Ov e.-Ji. L��. 44 1 GkCriccl ice- Gr�4 A 'AN r3tr c_tium,p 1= �nuglGS ter k Nem�acic. D5 '�Qad ��urnp H $ Nvekke- j qrr9 t. C2aC.0 ^r6vR. - Q�Ibsk�y 5 ome ocss �u ll Svc x e� Kakvq. CTJ S u� Sun 7 d. ShQ�1� 2.-1Fd-=2-o18 H ickmc n Park Pav Vjc� rime, 51op-e- plaw�nq �s+ P1aV) J0� ;'4`la�ron� S hrob s 11 Vifhe, w1ap A S r�1r I uc,kl c.beyl 1� j! JUG IQ'Salal -fh�mb►�ben� 21. Sward F-e►r•Vl T V4 00a S*, 4<es �—Sut� Nc�fi ( ny w •g 51p•'= a' m �'ro�osa d Plar&lnj Plan I0% 2, 'A' / .14.' t3 7 fo le -r "--- �-� -- * . IleAgat Z its �WX ��e'` 13 c as Ma � � ` •. � � t '0 . i I 0 IL /f oil B. 7 IV-9 ;c •'' 0 GC 8�r I Ghaiv� l i r-e-A --0 0 z !. I �? t-T � F � 13 j� { GArF i 44 i ckc�cc� A A \ ci2r L lump 4- �:Jo.�gIGS Y�r >JS naacl �'�ump HS Nvckl�l�acr<� 9�16s�1y Scia1 S OML Boi)' nGA 4J. - F. k\ SUS L1. M.,,X QA 1\kak'n. cs-0 7 N�a;n SfJp�. ►.i4\S i�Q�:Qn �• lnrooclecl ^� �flar\� Hickman Por'4 ParViandi>✓ El c-vai i 2.0' W., LA IA �ZoI• S 1 ope Date t. Z— 1(v-2c)[116 Drawinu bu -- '1 P-sSP AMS R E S RESODOURCE CONSULTANTS January 4, 2018 Rich Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager City of Edmonds 700 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: City of Edmonds Hickman Park Steep Slope NW Corner of the Park Edmonds, WA Our Reference: J130-01-17 Email: Rich. Li ndsay@edmondswa.gov Dear Mr. Lindsay: Adams Resource Consultants (ARC) is pleased to provide you with our geotechnical letter of opinion and several repair options for the steep slope issues in the northwest corner of Hickman Park (the site). As you know, the NW corner of the park contains a steep slope (in a mapped Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area) that has been eroding over the past year due to: A) physical activities by residents running up and sliding down the steep slope and B) due to loose fill materials placed on the slope directly above the Park property by the adjacent subdivision developer to the north. The slope surface erosion problem also extends northward onto the neighbor's property and the ground becomes steeper (see attached Figures 1 and 2). Our site activities and observations to date include field measurements and several shallow hand auger excavations to prepare a preliminary site cross section of the exposed ground surface and surface features (fence and trees). EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The erosion within Hickman Park is confined to a small area with a relatively steep slope located in the far northwest corner of the park at the end of a long (approximately 600 feet) trail through the woods. In the corner, the level trail ends, and a steep slope of approximately 26 degrees rises to the north. There is an open section without trees about 35 feet wide which has become a "play slide" area for children to climb up and slide down (per discussions with residents Christina and Russell Burton to the north). This activity has knocked down the natural vegetation that exists elsewhere on this slope which has led to slightly more soil erosion and prevented regrowth of vegetation. Hickman Park Site Observations J-130-01-17 January 4, 2018 Near the top of the slope, several vertical exposures exist where we observed fill materials. These materials include concrete rubble, bricks, asphalt shingles, and fill dirt (sand and gravel), see Figure 4. The existing fence along the north property line has some loose soil against it. The fence is leaning over and appears to be in danger of falling down the slope on to the Park property (Figure 1). A 20" hemlock tree about 8.5 feet south of the fence is leaning to the north at an angle of about 20 degrees against a Douglas Fir tree (40" DBH) (Figure 1). On the adjacent Burton's property, our observations confirm that several feet of fill was placed likely to provide a level backyard. Several retaining elements (concrete footings) were installed, but abandoned (Figure 3 upper left). Portions of this fill area have been covered with heavy plastic tarps and sandbags (Figure 2). The large douglas fir tree previously mentioned is located about 13.5 feet north of the property line. The roots of this tree are buried in 12 to 18 inches of fill. Overall, the length of the exposed steep eroded slope in the Park is about 65 feet (slope distance) and about 35 feet wide. At a slope angle of about 26 degrees, the overall height (vertical gain) is about 32 feet. The steep slope continues another 12 to 15 feet horizontally on to the Burton's property with a vertical gain of about 11 feet. Portions of the upper slope fill (rubble) have been eroding down into the Park area, and can be seen along the hillside and at the toe of the slope. Based on our preliminary calculations and site observations, the steep exposed native sand and gravel (at a 26 to 27-degree angle) on the Park property is stable from a global stability point of view. We believe it is highly unlikely and do not anticipate deep (over 3 feet) failure surfaces to develop in this slope on Park property. The conditions of movement include mainly shallow surface erosion involving the top most 2 feet of the ground surface. However, we have observed unstable conditions that appear to include overly steep (near vertical) soil, tension cracks and slope movement in the fill on the neighboring property. In the current geometry this fill poses a danger to anyone on or below the area including those in the Park both from moving soil/debris, fencing that could fall over and loose sand and gravel deposited on the steep slope. ALTERNATIVES City Property To minimize future erosion on the Park property, we considered the following alternatives: ADAMS Resource Consultants Company I Page 2of12 PO Box 1770 1 Duvall, Washington 98019-1770 1 Tel 425.788-3244 1 Fax 888-248-8629 / www.AdamsResource. com Hickman Park Site Observations January 4, 2018 J-130-01-17 1) Install heavy wire fabric over the ground surface and reinforce with soil anchors, and vegetation; 2) Install a vegetated ground cover over the erosion area. Ground cover should be reinforced with an erosion control blanket or a light duty synthetic geoweb material anchored to the slope and filled with topsoil. Slope with Geoweb: Alternative 1 is relatively expensive and would require a 9 feet wide access haul road through the park to the slope site. Alternative 1 would cost approximately $100,000 or, Alternative 2 is relatively inexpensive and can be constructed with small equipment that can access the existing trail (which is about 6 feet wide). This alternative will likely require a temporary irrigation line, depending on the selected vegetative cover, to enable establishment of the plants during the first two or three summer (dry) seasons. The temporary pipe can be removed during the winter months. A major advantage of this alternative is that all the work can be performed by City Park's personnel and equipment. As an Interim safety measure, we understand the City is currently in the process of constructing a new 6-feet tall chain link fence along the bottom of the slope to prevent access to the eroding area. The fence will include a gate for access to the site for future construction. This will help minimize access that creates ongoing erosion and will be necessary in the future once construction begins. Neighbor's Fill Slope Ideally, for the restoration of the Park section of the slope to be completely safe, the upper portion ADAMS Resource Consultants Company Page 3of12 PO Box 1770 1 Duvall, Washington 98019-1770 1 Tel 425.788-3244 1 Fax 888-248-8629 / www.AdamsResource. com Hickman Park Site Observations J-130-01-17 January 4, 2018 on the neighbor's property (with the fill and leaning fence) should be addressed and be completed. Alternatives for the upper fill slope include: A. Remove portions of the fill (to create an acceptable slope angle) from along the property lines (south and east) and build several reinforced retaining walls, or several stepped (tiered) walls; B. Install a series of drilled vertical piles with timber lagging between the piles near south and east property lines (may not be feasible due to steep slope to south and lack of passive resistance for pile support). C. Remove the fill material and install vegetated ground cover (similar to City's alternative 2); Depending on how much soil is removed, Alternative A could be relatively easy to construct, and is not nearly as expensive. However, this alternative may require the removal of the large Fir tree. Alternative B would be expensive (probably over $100,000) but access with equipment can be via the property Owner's driveway, and this option may save the Fir tree if it's roots have not already been damaged by the fill. Piles would have to be deeper than normal due to the slope to the south. Alternative C is relatively inexpensive, but extreme care will need to be taken to avoid damaging the buried roots of the large Fir tree. We recommend an arborist be consulted to evaluate the condition of the tree and root system. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend proceeding with Alternative 2 on the Park Property and complete discussions with the neighboring property owners to devise a plan for reducing the slope hazard posed by the fill on their property. Note, depending on the neighbor's corrective actions, the north fence along the property line may need to be rebuilt slightly downslope where the foundation is not in the fill material. Considering the City Park: Alternative 2 has several additional advantages: • Detailed topographic survey is not needed (saving $2500) • Detailed engineering plans are not needed (saving $8,000 or more) • No permits should be required. ADAMS Resource Consultants Company I Page 4of12 PO Box 1770 1 Duvall, Washington 98019-1770 1 Tel 425.788-3244 1 Fax 888-248-8629 / www.AdamsResource. com Hickman Park Site Observations J-130-01-17 January 4, 2018 LIMITATIONS Subsurface conditions interpreted from observed soil materials and seepage conditions encountered formed the basis for developing the recommendations in this report. The nature and extent of conditions may change over time, often vary between observation locations and differences may not become evident until after the start of site work. If significant variations then appear evident, we should be consulted to re-evaluate the conclusions and recommendations in this report. It should be noted that groundwater seepage and any fluctuations in the level of the groundwater are dependent on seasonal variations in rainfall, temperature, and other climatic factors. Our work for this project was performed, and this report prepared, in accordance with our original contract with you, executed on August 10, 2017, including any approved changes. We have completed this work in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of the work done in the same, or in similar localities, at the time the work was performed. This report is intended for the exclusive use of you and your contractors and/or consultants for specific application to the referenced property. We make no other warranty, express or implied. ADAMS Resource Consultants Company I Page 5of12 PO Box 1770 1 Duvall, Washington 98019-1770 1 Tel 425.788-3244 1 Fax 888-248-8629 / www.AdamsResource. com Hickman Park Site Observations January 4, 2018 J-130-01-17 If we may provide any additional information or clarification about this report, please do not hesitate to contact Wayne by cell at 425.466.2891 or by message at 425.788.3244. Sincerely, ADAMS Resource Consultants Company o{ W a shi ��e ORJ•FL �v W AS., 0'A nng Geo o�gst y 01104 of l � Ge Wayne C. Adams WAYNE C. ADAMS, PE, PENG, EG President/CEO ADAMS Resource Consultants z�� G�� IONALti� ARTHUR J. FLEMING, PE Associate Engineer ADAMS Resource Consultants ADAMS Resource Consultants Company I Page 6of12 PO Box 1770 1 Duvall, Washington 98019-1770 1 Tel 425.788-3244 1 Fax 888-248-8629 / www.AdamsResource. com Iit ''' ;?+ / 'r.�/ N M •ilil►III f) <•�'�{,, 1!M/ tt•y! • ! ,•fir. ram:. •�'� ,,� . Hickman Park Site Observations January 4, 2018 J-130-01-17 Note: All locationsand dimensionsshown are approximate. Figure 2: Top of steep slope showing fill against fence on neighboring A property. View to west above property line. _ ADAMS Resource Consultants Company I Page 8of12 PO Box 1770 1 Duvall, Washington 98019-1770 1 Tel 425.788-3244 1 Fax 888-248-8629 / www.AdamsResource. com Hickman Park Site Observations January 4, 2018 J-130-01-17 Note: All I ocati ons and dimensions shown are approximate. Figure 3: Top of steep slope showing fill against fence on neighboring A A. - property. View to north. ADAMS Resource Consultants Company I Page 9of12 PO Box 1770 1 Duvall, Washington 98019-1770 1 Tel 425.788-3244 1 Fax 888-248-8629 / www.AdamsResource. com Hickman Park Site Observations January 4, 2018 J-130-01-17 Note: All locationsand dimensionsshown are approximate. Figure4: Top of steep slope showing fill. View to north. - ADAMS Resource Consultants Company I Page 10of12 PO Box 1770 1 Duvall, Washington 98019-1770 1 Tel 425.788-3244 1 Fax 888-248-8629 / www.AdamsResource. com Hickman Park Site Observations January 4, 2018 J-130-01-17 Note: All I ocationsanddimensionsshown are approximate. Figure 5: Top of steep slope showing fill. View to north. A ADANb _wcwcuwcc 6DN�ULTANT■ T ADAMS Resource Consultants Company Page11 of12 PO Box 1770 1 Duvall, Washington 98019-1770 1 Tel 425.788-3244 1 Fax 888-248-8629 / www.AdamsResource. com Exposed Fill /-38" Doug (Approx 3 fet) I / Fir Approx Property Line + I / Approximate I 1 / Surface of Native Existing Fence r• (Some fill behind) Soil Unit A Silty Sand, with some Rounded Gravel and Existing Hemlock u s 10 Cobbles, Bricks, 20 Inch ' Concrete Blocks and Leaning Over ^,,;% Scale in Feet >. Wood (USCS: SM) Fill a Soil Unit B: Silty Sand, with some Rounded Gravel and Existing Grade Cobbles, (USCS: SM) 9 Glacial Outwash 0 Z V o Note: All locations and dimensions shown are approximate. Figure 6: Geologic cross-section sketch showing ground surface and estimated subsurface conditions. View toward north. !y CIQ N N O M M. w O 0 V .. � +s/. •r M �,1�� J! - � `r . 1, ', J . � `i' .� ,.,�, ♦ ` f' it 1 �.r :. I . • •ti 4,� :. , saw - lip _. i � •� i•1� ?. �♦♦♦•91♦1�♦ i y .�+�? ;,4 •� •'\ .ia •? �"• - .'L� ' '�V�QNNNN♦♦N���'� ' � 4',S � ���j��♦,,♦♦�♦,P ' i t� wo &0 WOW Ow � r.. i.J�j1♦S!♦t♦N'►♦♦♦♦♦♦ . ♦��� .r '�� 1i� 9 goP pfNV rN VI ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦►�• \•�Y„♦♦♦♦♦1♦♦♦♦��..,�.\ , ♦♦`� � x� '�"� � b►'' twW r !40 ♦♦♦• •♦1• ♦►♦♦♦ Ale .SS�S♦N♦ 1�r� •i3' t' t' ' L �1 O !{. \ . '''�.S•S � � ;S • �: }{ . ,?}`• , ! ,-sue '` , f.5 : `� 4 , f� f ` ` )' '!r i'• 'ji�'r e4 a� d 151 as f� t. .�_L 'l.: ./ , � '. . �`��•,r=r, ri Ir ' firs• •:7 � � :. ;���,�. - —�'�� Aw rM1 •' � � � y �• ri 1Q J - � r��R--'� '. �. � �� �- -• -ar V i 4:>� 1 � 4 �r'� � +�'v�r �,s; ;ii. ,1 't r! ., t�t�` � ` Iv - AL - � �f ,� •4 �� 1fy. 1 •, .. .. ' S Ij r ri'� �' `,. ril``' ! *� +fit <<It� i �• t �•F f qsQ 11 � � , .ji• W ��r , 1,, a .r �. , t - L-�ie'�,�i. •., • a\ 7 �''' c t� _'lh 'i ! • 1 �11� r �. 1 It. • Z _ -ppMZ /'ter ,? .••1;1 r'; �Tt.}}►` , 1 S l •it i 1t 1, ,All" ; it ti ,� , •} s ::ram - Y'. ! . � v fi . �j `�S ���0 .#: �3�� i - �• \. `1:`dlt-'.u�\ rV• , 2 n i rv- i �•- - . C':' .PS, t.!i �. ,. t_�. 5 �• •. �,ti ♦�>♦♦A•l r ,� +'. fir' '1 Ql••-. A : ��5� �9� `?\ q t • ='=� \•� - ='u�1 .�a1i,Ati ,t., � �:r •l.. �. _�,. ± � . .\; r �. • .i � � y }f .�i �',�� �, ?�:. j�IC` � ' `+, f' "C«((( S,' F?�'? f 1. '�+: »j7 1T �i- �i 1. t' • � �' '' ��iv:``` 1P �'ni y,. •_ •'�-'``� � •.� _ - NI �ii S �,s' . 1 . �♦. 9t•.� "1.. ;-cs,� Y� r ♦y" . y � d - t � •�- •,J,�m - ��� 1. .� •i wR' TT� �'s ~ �y • a.,. i ti' '\ `'� `~ - � �t�^';��'I F } ��h3 . � � a Lr:�• -.'s . , '(`^_T`` �.l 1� 1't ., mob. r ram- .z 7 •4 r'i dam``' � ��' �-'_ .}.�, U .i•� q}r .� .. � r, ..w 3Y � e y�•\ � -,T•�_(1 .. � �: � -Nrr' �fYM„yy � •,' � ' V � �! -\ 1 , � ` j� I � 1 � ISM. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client ( a, ,, r, - F A y \ Date I I $ ?. I I �, Time n" Address/Tree location GI tC�.aur.v, i -�1 Tree no. Sheet I off Tree species i c e. e e u 11a dbh_ ' `. !/,�." Height ,A ,a. Crown spread dia. ZA Assessor(s) 11,ht . �><-Time frame I Toolsused Target zone Occupancy n, c c ~ cx Target description a c 1rataee V 5 c �+ u x 2-occa5lonal 3-frequent F F$ F 4-constant a E a s K2�; i4. �-ie--� nv.�.4. t�l„• . '-.`,rye ��' (lr.t.11.. l� �r.rr �' ••� X � �1?� 2 3 4 nLC rab4ulJ History of failures_ NI) Topography Flat❑ SloppO^ % Aspect Site changes None❑ Grade change❑ Site clearing -Er Changed soil hydrolbgy.R'Root cuts,0 Describe LWi fir, rlebr;, , r1,,,,,(� • n,tid \e2„� <,;. Soil conditions Limited volum%aSaturated ❑ Shallow-❑ CompactedEl0 Pavement over roots %a Describe &v 9r 4% c c„ r Prevailing wind directions Common weather Strong winds421ce❑ Snow El Heavyraila43 DescribeatilDrr.1 (�I.1t1 �..1•Pe,�k•uc Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ NormaL R High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal C?oj % Chlorotic % Necrotic Pests Abiotic S',a ; Species failure profile Branches•2-Trunk•a Roots.❑- Describe - , a_ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected❑ PartiaLO-Full❑ Wind funneling❑ Relative crown size Small Medium❑ Large❑ Crown density Sparse,,2 Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Interior branches Fevy.❑ NormW2-Dense ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or planned change In load factors Tree -Meets and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Dead twigs/branches ❑ overall Max. dia. Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ _% Broken/Hangers Number Max, dia, Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑ Over -extended branches ❑ Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole _/o 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 El Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth Mainconcern(s) KL,,e Load on defect N/9,EI� Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure ImprobableB" Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ —Trunk — — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Notvisible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Lean i�C� °Corrected? fit, Root late lifting ❑ Soil weakness LE" p g Responsegrowth •in el 1hrLt 61) ,� p,-, (rn,�ot ---T-- Main concern(s) cu^�- • 1x-�kk1 >-+r.lt6 . �„ cur, �. Response growth _ � �4 t ,,� c, i- A.I' gA t• cct�� w�t�t,r r Main concern(s) Load on defect N/A ❑ Minoy9' Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ 51gnificanj,121, Improbable,J�� Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probabls•0' Imminent ❑ Page I of 2 Risk CotegOrization Likelihood E v a Consequences Failure Impact Failure & Impact 3 u E (from Matrix 1) Risk „ „ E r r F N c 41 rating e Conditions t: — Qn Tar et g E a $ E Z: 3 m m x a E a _ Z oa o c at of part (from u° Tree part of concern ri li protection '£ d d E > 9 x > ; z"' v�i f Matrix 2) �iStS w�a o" l to l\�h OS'1 2 3 4 Matrix I. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impacting Target Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely I Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Mntrix2. Risk rating matrix. Likelihood -of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure 'Negligible Minor Significant severe Very likely Lovv Wlod... ta Nlak FxhrAmn --ly tom,..„ PJloeler3ko ul'Qh HtVal 5011lewhat likely Low. Low Modcratc Moderate Unlikely Low Low .Lou✓ Notes, explanations, descriptions \UNd t C, t t•Il�m�\/ � f,C Y' '` G i i4,. ■-�-Sl. "!M1 PMC� t' .��\T ��J r�. V.e Klorth Mitigation options t_t-t,\,.t, t91 roc C t,\)\1 4,r n ! ro c,t i. 4 4 Est Residual risk i ilswN i COL P a', 1\+t a A nc i t-a� � t,t.l�l ��nt\ \e � n (�� c . I \,.Jr1 i C� Residual risk en ina R �., t�.� C}� 1� ; `ti a Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Lovu4!r Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Work priority 1 ❑ 2,Rr 3 ❑ 4 ❑ `l Overall residual risk Lovy,B' Moderate ❑ High q, Extreme D Recommended inspection interval i it tr__ Dataeff-Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed-©tio ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations J21f4one ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar burled Describe This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and Is intended for use byTYee RislkAssessment Qualified (TRA6) arborists — 2013 ` Page 2 of 2