Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Takelma_2669_PA-A-2020-00143
February 8, 2021 Clay Creek Gardens HOA c/o Amy Richards 2669 Takelma Way Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Multi Year Street Tree Management Plan PA-A-2020-00143 To Whom it may concern: CITY OF ASHLAND The purpose of this ministerial planning action is to authorize a multi -year street tree management plan for the Clay Creek Home Owners Association (CCHOA). What we are hoping to achieve with this administrative acknowledgment is to document the current situation of the street trees that require removal, while also providing flexibility to the CCHOA in terms of timing for both removal and replanting. The CCHOA neighborhood was platted nearly twenty years ago, as such the trees that were planted when the subdivision was created have become very mature. A majority of the street trees planted in the neighborhood are sycamores which are notorious for shedding large limbs due to their susceptibility to heartwood rot, as well as being highly susceptible to anthracnose (a fungal disease). The CCHOA communicated with staff regarding a request to removal an unspecified number of street trees as they are all posing potential hazards and this administrative planning followed. The application indicate that a total of eighteen trees are requested for removal, including: 12 Sycamores, I Modesto Ash, 1 Red Maple, 2 Cherry, and 2 Linden trees. The application materials include a detailed ISA risk assessment form for each of the trees that have been identified for removal prepared by Casey Roland. The application explains that the HOA has proactively maintained the street trees by routine pruning. The application states that despite the hest efforts to maintain the trees due to their age the hazard can only be mitigated by removal. The application makes clear that the community is sensitive to loosing more tree canopy than necessary and therefore wants to address the replacement of the trees that require removal over multiple years. The application states that the HOA is working in consultation with Plant Oregon to both procure replacement trees and to advise on species selection. The application indicates that species being considered for selection include maple, oak, selkova, and parrotia, all of which are City of Ashland recommended street trees. At the Tree Commission's January 2021 meeting this administrative planning action was brought before them. Staff explained the background of the application and the submitted application materials. Staff explained that there were 18 trees proposed to be removed but have an expectation that the tree removals would be done over the next several years. The application DEPT, OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050� Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us IVAN was represented by Amy Richards from the CCHOA, and Casey Roland their tree care professional. Casey presented a history of the work that he has done with the HOA and answered a number of questions from the commissioners. Casey highlighted the importance of maintaining the canopy so that mitigation planting have a favorable environment to grow in. There was extensive conversation about the number of trees that should be allowed to be removed and replaced per year. Ultimately the tree commission, in dialog with the applicant, settled on a limit of no more than 50% of the proposed trees to be removed per year, gave the HOA the most flexibility. The Tree Commission deliberated on the submitted materials and testimony that was given. A motion with a valid second was given and the tree commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the application with the following conditions of approval. 1. that all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval, 2. no more than 50% of the proposed trees be removed and replaced per year 3. that the HOA shall contact the planning department on an annual basis with updates on the project. Planning Staff finds that the Tree Commission Recommendations are reasonable and give the HOA the flexibility to remove and replace these trees in a manner that promotes the mitigation plantings while maintaining as much canopy as possible. One final item staff would like to make clear is that this planning action is specific to the 18 trees identified in the application materials submitted with this application. If there are other trees that are identified as hazardous and require removal they will need to go through the standard tree removal process. Finally, staff would like to thank the HOA for working through this process. If you have any concerns or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at the number below. Respectfully, Aaron Anderson CFM, Associate Planner City of Ashland, Planning Division Department of Community Development e-mail: aaron.anderson(cr7,ashland.or.us or Phone: 541-552-2052 Cc: File Planning Division r V OF 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR //97520 J'A'T1-400-jJVJ Pax Zf-tl^-too %VVV ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION FILE # ft - h- f� DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT I' , if, - y� a /" /Y e c &-t 1C m e ✓f Pr-0 / (fC_r. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Pursuing LEEDO Certification? © YES I] NO Street Address L y I-rCek AyA �'7-akcIma rileg CIct,4 rec'L Wcr-±j . Assessor's Map No. 391E Pla)� � r C C 6 !/D /9 t c. A � I s c�v[ " Tax Lot(s) i Zoning Comp Plan Designation APPLICANT Name Amy 8, c-A a d Phone 67} /k-Mail a CJ t Z_ A +!i ctth r LGta�9t �, Address Z 6 fie l G_ 1rr�al U City �5,�„f+�;�', Zip 9-75-20 C044 PROPERTY OWNER Name Q0.� treeL L� L &0A Phone 5q -7_q ,.30_7j. E-Mail su c rc al ncd 0.4 A a'c— : ccn +" Address Z 1-03 M r c ke Is cM kfa City (allnd ZIP. s"cut /(cvt r�cc�y , resrrre�i CCGKo�g SURVEYOR ENGINEER ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OTHER Title 6iOrL's t Name Oeo cv P 4 cj job d Phone 5y/-`1S_3''D U_2 E-Mail Address Title Name Address Phone City City E-Mail Zip Zip i hereby certify that Ghc ctatcrnonk anti informotion-cmofnod in this application, net -ding tho onclosod drmvings and the rcqur`rod findings of fact arc in all rc;;pccts, true and correct, f understand that all property pins most be shown on the drawings and visible upon the site inspection. In the event the pins are not shown or their location found to be incorrect, the owner assumes full responsibility. 1 further understand that if this request is subsequently contested, the burden will be on me to establish: 1) that I produced sufficient factual evidence at the hearing to support this request; 2) that the findings of fact furnished justifies the granting of the request; 3) that the findings of fact furnished by me are adequate, and further 4) that al structures or improve eats are properly located on the ground. l ! Fa<jHc� lder vn�. �c.�S KeCc- U-e,sS re in finis regard will result most likely in not only the request being set aside, but also possibly in my structures being bt in reliance thereon being required to be removed at my expense. if f have any doubts, t am advised to seek competent professional advice and assista ce. Applicant&Zgnatu Date As owner o *y0erty to ve in this request, f have read and understood the complete application and its consequences to me as a property ;;:owner. - 2-u rroperty vw er s Signature trequiredj udie [To be completed by City Slarq f Date Received 1�.� ��LI Zoning Permit Type � 1 Filing Fee $ f r n . S OVER kk GAoomm-ticvlp1an0ng,,Fomv K HnnJoutl \Zoning Pennit Appbwliamdou December 21, 2020 To: Planning Department, Tree Commission From: Clay Creek Gardens Homeowners Association RE: Multi -year Hazardous Street Tree Abatement Project Enclosed you will find the documents for our request for a revised street tree plan for the HOA. Aaron Anderson, assistant planner, advised us to proceed in this way, as we have a number of street trees that are hazardous or dying. Because of the number of trees that need to be removed, he felt it was best to submit the requested changes as a zoning permit, covering a number of trees, for two to three years. In addition, our arborist has advised us that other trees, not included in this List, will need to be removed in the near future. Clay Creek Gardens, built in 2002, is now a lovely shaded neighborhood due to the mature trees lining the street. Unfortunately, while London Planetree (sycamore cultivar) was recommended by the City at the time, it is no longer on the list. We understand why. In the past few years, with the help of certified arborist Casey Roland (Casey P. Roland Tree Care), the Board of Directors and the Landscape Committee have come to recognize that many of the sycamores in the neighborhood are in declining health, to the point of becoming dangerous to community property and personal safety. Starting in 2019, we took remedial action to mitigate the risk of failing branches by contracting Casey to prune the sycamores, while we worked on a longer -term plan. He has been in the neighborhood numerous times not only to prune, but to remove tops of trees and branches that have fallen after wind storms. It is clear that the trees have become increasingly hazardous. The Board and Landscape Committee have spent numerous hours walking the neighborhood with Casey to review the trees and also with Dan Bish of Plant Oregon in consultation about replacement trees. This submission represents what we hope will be the next step in achieving the long-term solution of replacing the hazardous and dying trees, many of which, but not all, are sycamores. We understand that ultimately the City and the Tree Commission will decide how this plan unfolds, and our hope is that you will approve a two -to -three-year plan so we can remove the hazardous and dying trees and replant with more appropriate recommended trees for the neighborhood. Those under consideration are a Maple cultivar, an Oak cultivar, 2elkova (shorter variety), and Parrotia—all of which are among the City of Ashland's recommended street trees. We view this as a multi -year plan because we do not want to lose the entire canopy of the neighborhood. Also, we want to plant the new trees at the appropriate seasonal times in order to give them the best possible chance for a healthy future. We thank you for your time and consideration, and if you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact the following: Sue Kennedy, President, Clay Creek Gardens HOA Board of Directors; 541-292-3079 Amy Richard, Landscape Committee Chair, 541-601-8918 Documents included: • Cover Letter • Zoning Permit Request • Plats for Clay Creek Gardens Subdivision (Phase land 2): marked with trees designated by arborist as hazardous or dying • Basic Tree Assessment Forms, completed by Casey Roland (18 assessments) • List of trees assessed as needing removal by Casey Roland with addresses ( b V V, C 4 � — a +� Y GJlY May y li y ma�rc imaurtxnr a�rsw� -... .. ..ac Ymm fig '¢ / 11 +s i3 oEe`"s0� a d' s t By y � tl Ea I a 7 A K £ L M Ar WAY TAKE M6 _ M01i _ + wRr u,nC L SiY01 - p A f'U /ol's F 6i �+o I i fi5 I _-....._ .� �p�yl �! t� Q�-• -• -y �l } ��1 /. � N � � •I /rjpl #I YI Tl,�`$ I � � ���4 � Ei #ti fYpq a}a u ror .91.00.0f f ES � ir' b li IaIE K� JAp1Et,YN SMUT xzs ass rn 8 -w--c ' `saw r r � Q akc�g� ^ P O y O K 11 P• Ar °4 A a r unu�i 4M to r CZA. TTfV-7 l {f�iTlYL�J1Y6 ""----« _...-..�.-- ._ �.- � .--....._--`�.W40'J4S-ry9107SFiCI3iY�1�75i7!'i iib�•«�-•• -.• �`.. It J ?ram SIR3F[�H7 RI F ... � 11 �, O ra ; E f. as ! L��x �bJ, '• �'4Ba_r J - fflf G�� �I �r £p . F MSd$ -° Pm ctm T �i Ldl 781i ��T tivr '� , aS - y Fein _ igGj Z 'z YECUdiYA' .477ARpY It _ w>�--- ti p �m¢n oaro—' sxu G I z - �.res / /AO(/BLYN y' a7RR•tT I I l X{a;ATC. ti4 = ,lt/Y u N �� m�5 e � / _ � 8 �g � �a yro•n���na-__ I� 7� J' N �^$&d =$ •.°GoL+S 1 �¢ ��h yx I �� ga ,iy �+ �, r' HTr � I � i 11 a� / tl gy ! 7 ! ww'n-. ryta 5 1• y 1 / �� r � 8' r C q ! ! 11 �e l a mry 1 a>: Jr 1 41, �aL 1/ I a$ / •� 1 �y,�t /r ac 1 � � ��/ , a� � a / J�cy�y o / � tI'•���y wa iuws ➢ 5- 1 � �~! 6 i' /'!1/a� �' �r r��7,M p I�^�v 8E k � q r —,/1• � tj Sw• in � Ig ^Isvecp'. nm• � /J E S S 8 � d ��N � R a s' AV 114, $ m CCGHOA Sycamore Tree Assessment As of: 10/12/20 Amy Richard and Caseyµ Roland 1 ? 2666 Takelma Way Sycamore 2 12668 Takelma Way Scamore� } 3 12680 Clay Creek Way „u m s Sycamore E 4 Lawn 1(Tolman Creek & Takelma i Modesto Ash i $ ' 5 € 2680 Takelma Way I Sycamore I 6 4 2682 Takelma Way Sycamore 7 12673 Takelma Way_ j 8 12690 Takelma Wa Sycamore _.R.R ._.�...�.s....r.} 9 Fw.�. .._.m......mµ.. ..,,.Y_ 12699 Takelma 1 Sycamore ; 10 12698 Takelma/Jaquelyn/at driveway ;'sycamore 11 w _ F 2698 Takelma Way/Ja uel n i sycamore M._. rM 12 Lawn 2 Gazebo tree to south J..._ ?, �._..�rt.,._... )Sycamore } ,Sy .__..�.__,�_..�._Y� I 13 i Lawn 2 (Gazebo) tree to north Sycamore i 14 12702 Takelma Way Red Maple I r 15 I 2736 Takelma Way_ i Cherr 3 ! 16 2740 Takelma Way/east of tree 15 ;Cherry {..�v 17 iTakelma Way/Tolman/100' w/o TolmaH Linden ' 18 ? 2736 Takelma Way Linden { INII Babic Tree Risk Assessment For ClientcW, rArzz Ps? Date Z 1 Time Address/Tree location Gi!���� Tree no Sheet_ of C Z_ Tree species k ' dbh r� Height own spread dia. 2 62' Assessor(s) ' Tools used Time frame 41y x - _ 5�f:«4�r. T �-- _ - - Target zone Occupancy .o E c Z c c T rate 1-rare +�+ as c ° Target description Target protection % % x 2-occesional Iq 3--frequent ? a-constant a a� E 1 Co 0a � v L 2 3 4 - It-'c`1 £. Y - Gi- .*'- s, f i -_- � 4 ✓ - ��``����I+C�. `.J. 4 ,� J. q L,2:-- �.�f Z _ Y .. 4f✓�',. fit, F;} £tom, � '3\T �. F J Jj � ���: - _ .-Lti�.. �LV �-L�! ti _ 7 t }.. sue.,. .[z :-,.E - ._.��� __ L - History of failures ('[_ Topography FIEW Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes NonQP Grade change ❑ Site clearing El Changed soil hydrology[] Root cuts❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited vollueo-s%,aturated ❑ Shallowo Compacted.Pavement over rootAU JO—% Describe Prevailingwinddirectio Cornmonweather Strong windsAice❑ Snow[] Heavyraln❑ Describe Vigor Lo►nl 1 prmal ❑ High [] liage None (seasonal)❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests/Biotic V-,tZ C— Abiotic Species failure profile Branches❑ Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe - Wind exposure protected❑ Partial❑ Full Wind funnelinjA Relative crown size Small ❑ MediumK Large ❑ Crown density Sparse Normal El Dense interior branches Few[] Normal Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or expected change in load factors Unbalanced crown © LCR % Dead twigs/branches ❑ % overall Broken/Hangers Number Over -extended branches ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned 13 Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Flush cuts 1W Other — Crown and Branches — Cracks © Lightning damage Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark 0 Max. dia. Weak attachment Cavity/Nest holed circ. Previous branch failureW7 Similar branches present ❑ Raised 0 Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls © Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Lion -tailed Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Load ondefect N/A❑ Minor ©. Moderate❑ Significant❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible Probable © Imminent —Trunk-- Dead/Missing bark 19 Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Codominant stems ❑ included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze El Lightning damage[] Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Lean Corrected? Response growth Conditions) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor © Moderate© Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure improbable El Possible Probable © Imminent ❑ — Roots and Root Collar — Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ ooze ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Response growth Condition (s) of concern Cavity ❑ % circ. Distance from trunk Soil weakness ❑ Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate[] Sign€9cant1Lj I Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Signifiicant C7 Likelihood offailure Improbable❑ Possible© Probable 0 ImminenAMA Likelihood offallure Improbable❑ Poss€bleE3 Probable El Imminent 11 f0 I L Likelihood Consequences Failure & Impact Failure Impact Target (from MaWX1) Condition(s) (Target number Tree part ® *, - or description) of concern p m o Z m c Risk a o m 3 x � rating c _ �? a `"n o F �$ m m Z bb c a (from aw in 3n, Matr&2) no. a. -' Y 4 - iY 4 ]i OR Y� W � S r.�.� .:.r Matrix I. Likelihood matroc c t � A_ - sett, �: �,1A1`S {-`Fi . j7 TT.1p-yI F �_A,a 'PCta4[c�lf .w,.,.7�cep�yj. h lI]IiCe1y� ytb�l(IE Inll�R3l1 ' , VjtlClcIH3 ,l�f.�!!-f_�� , _,1#i { hfkFrS 4� MaWK2. Risk rating matrix ¢tlGM.a es' j 5 L y� WNW lh ` Fliwll L�l R,tdj • Mitigati options z. 3. 4. I.Aj(" v,0:(L.i North Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme vol Overall residual risk Non4l- 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 Client Addre. Tree sl Asses Risk Assessm , it Form Date IJ l �; 22-:eOffime Gx-;I'j Tree no. Sheet of dbh �' r+ T height._ Crown spread dia. ! L Tools used Time frame 7� '-! 1 } h �'.��yyJ } 3 L 5-: N v�` �' i �.f Y'"S t- Am OiNa Target zone 0 Occupancy 1� E s ,+A + rate rate y m p n Target Target description Target protection % x v' 'L' Np `ry 3—frequent i 4—consent E a rx X i- LQ 2 3 4 -- `t' 2 .+ r t r t .�:- l• _ w x"; + ,..,'max'' r- �r - r z y' _ �, Y t -at a - _ History of failures ' -2- 6*5 F 0 Topography Flatk Slope[] % Aspect Site changes NoneXL Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited volumeVk Saturated ❑ ShallowUl, CompactedU Pavement over rootV3 A% Describe Prevailing winddirectio4tL Common weather Strong windAQ Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe Vigor Low$[ Normal ❑ High ❑�Foliage None (seasonal)[]None (dead) El Pests/Biotic �Ci'+�- /71VICALfpe Abiotic Species failure profile Branches❑ Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe Windexposure Protected❑ Partial❑ Fuli® Crowndensity Sparse Normal❑ Dense❑ Recent or expected change in load factors — Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotir4L% Wind funneling). Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium ig Large❑ interior branches Few❑ Normal❑ Dense❑ Vines/Mistietoe/Moss ❑ Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Dead twigs/branches ❑ % overall Broken/hangers Number Over -extended branches t] Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned Reduced ❑ Topped Flush cuts ✓ Other — gown and Branches Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑ Max. dia. Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole pf circ. Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark 0 Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Lion -tailed Conks © Heartwood decay ❑ Response growth Conditions) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ©. Moderate ❑ Significanta Likelihood of failure Irnprobabie❑ Possible❑ Probable © Imminenta ® Trunk — Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Codominant stems ❑ included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Lightning damage❑ Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Lean Corrected? Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Load on deflect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate© Significant I Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible© Probable ❑ Imminent Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant` A Likellhoodoffailure Improbable❑ Possible-0 Probable 13 imminentJO Roots and Root Collar --- Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity © % circ. Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots Distance from trunk Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Response growth Conditions) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Signifiicant ❑ Likelihoodoffailure Improbablo❑ PossibleO Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ We f Likelihood Consequences Failure & Impact Failure Impact Target from MotrlxlJ Condition(s) (Target number Tree part o , ordescription) of concern 0 a v o Risk o m � @ c 3 ¢ � � ;ac s •� T rating o � W c (from I Matrix2) q e,.r r} ��' kr � :�-S 3 t{ F.k>, i.{ i r k tir { �` 'X''. sv F A•F - - i ,."-f- s�E s• K >`.s h! 4 .+- .+_� L.?'S'=,( �. �� - S` 3` 'f '4. Y14 _al? -i+'1Jy tir - G it-:'L. _;� F+J:..;f�. , f, �c ���✓- ys l _y }YA r!.?i 1 .(.. i�G_ Fri MAR Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. �.� ti OE..... xr i F b N III i ,'S� } AM _GY fY .. rrrerira?i� . _ _brk. �. I�I;C�,.Y, � �`j C�nTiY� ',�d�l•~� �. ,���s � i:.i. �,7ii�el!1l7;f5���1�. �"s f1iRLcilibl ir4>Irvi _= lfn L_ 'n� vill'.,( _ry�aliley . � Matrix2, Risk rating matrix. Ri k S 4"NOW �1;I1'�J�`�'�f1i�8C#i •`>�1��' 1�1i7�� �� �'�1 P�?1�s�t4ri ' � 4�1C � y, �`�'`itl'� r:^^.`.�_ll. LT;IN�+t_•t1�..- "r:•�+�jt pn'r .�}k k �V1�f.�.n,,F 4- - �F] !YZ _� Y 5-•kl�Rieiyn3�l Ap ��.ji`R�Y..'a %l�a3`C -.�. `.T ti yy 7V� 3�QYV �--`. �IYI' � 'ri 1 l �raga North Mitigation options Residual risk 2. Residual risk 3. Residual risk 41 Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ ExtremA Overall residual risk None ❑ Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data ❑ Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment neededWNo ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations Klone ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe l Basic Tree Risk Assess meliIirk Form Client 415 Date ZLt9LQ_ � Ti m e Address/Tree location Ce Tree no, M Sheet _1_ of Tree species 6h Height :5 Y crown spread dia. Tools used Time frame Assessor(s) C_ CZ -A �Ai. Th et zone Occupancy E y rate I —rare Target description Target protection i X H 'q 3—frequent 4—canstant La a I! IT a. E W, CL 2 3 4 History of failures LiTopography FlatEl SlopeO % Aspect Site changes NoneZl Grade change L3 Site clearing[] Changed soil hydrology 11 Root cuts n Describe Soil conditions Limited volume 10 Saturated 0 Shallowly Compactedill Pavement over rootsW_JQ�/6, Describe Prevailing wind clirecti=�p__ Common weather Strong windNQ Ice 0 SnowO Heavy rain El Describe Vigor Low, Normal 13 fflgh�� foliage None (seasonal)[] None(dead)[3 Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests/Biotic <V4-14�'C4.^4r 0 ezo-e_ Ablotic Species failure profile Branches$O TrunkV-Roots[I Winclexposure ProtectedEl Partial[3 Full[] Windfunneling[l Crowndensity SparseD NormalO DenseO interior branches FewEl Normal[] Dense[] Recent or expected change in load factors Unbalanced crown El LCR % Dead ttvigsjbranchesV % overall Broken/Hangers Number Over -extended branches)P- Pruning history Crown cleaned E3 Thinned 0 Reduced 0 Topped 13 Flush cuts (14 Other — Relative crown size SmaliO Medium Vines/Mistletoe/Moss L3 Large 0 Crown and Branches Cracks El Lightning damage 13 Max. dia. Codominant 13 ' included bark El Max. dia. Weak attachments Cavity/Nest hole__Y. circ. Previous branch failures 13 similar branches present 0 Raised 13 Dead/Missing bark 0 Cankers/Galls/BurlsD Sapwood damage/decay 13 Lion -tailed Conks 0 Heartwood decay 0 Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size - Fall Distance Load on defect N/A 13 Minor 0. ModerateM Significant[] Likelihood offailure improbable© Possible EI Probable 0 imminent 0 —Trunk— Dead/Missing bark 11 Abnormal bark texture/color 0 Codominant stems 11 Included bark 0 cracks El Sapwood damage/decay D Cankers/Galls/BurlsE] Sap ooze 0 UghtningdamageD Heartwood decay[] Conks/mushrooms 0 Cavity/Nest hole % c irc, Depth Poortaper n Lean- . Corrected? Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A El Minor 0 ModerateO Significant M Likelihood of failure improbable 13 Possible 13 Probable 0 imminent M — Roots and Root Collar — Collar buried/Not visible El Depth Stem girdling 11 Dead 11 Decay 11 Conks/Mushrooms 11 Ooze 0 Cavity 11 % circ. Cracks 0 Cut/Damaged roots 0 Distance from trunk Root plate lifting 11 Response growth — Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Soil weakness 13 Load on defect N/A n Minor El ModerateEl SignificantO Lead on defect N/A 0 Minor El Moderatell SignificantO Likelihood of failure improbable El Possible 0 Probable EJ Imminent 13 Likelihood of failure improbable 0 Possible 13 Probable 0 Imminent 0 Likelihood Consequences Failure & Impact Failure Impact Tar e# s (fmmMat&1) Condition(s) (Target number Tree park o , or description) of concern i s Risk Q a E rating A a a S a E 3 E m i'_ iu s c a (from in Ln Matr&2) 7 • a" .� .z. -�- mac: T r 7 r -;z' - ' s "c - - �{, t '> � S.. a - �. �r i_^; ... __:�. .,,..vim.: -..` -..:.• . ,_4 r: �.�.rs �_r ?:_e �_�-,. :t,a ;sL ... -i.,.:,- a: :.. ��>.. .�,.. �ti �y2. z ,,=� _ r Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. vN:lti�rH _ _F is ?S�tliliU4tllp3ys / t4y�SS 3+vG1} .7ilikeYa. ;,rkitl r{tliYf i �t7 Sa `erhat�tK�t` y -RAN i 4 _s�} Matrix2. Risk rating matrim � -s A-'�`i"' i � � 's""r3H }aM-w. ��.•'Y1��P" r������� 'F^.•S-, �6 ( }Y ��[��[7Q��� NO •y `} q� •'' { cam--,�� 7ry, ]� tt } ] �](p1 ` �il{et�r•�• � t 5 �°a56t_�,. L �` �'` � �:i;� �` i�o �;'��t'e-- E-rt �,> °���g� �;, ��,�. rninFaJ�kl �` M#?�feref• 3 3L _ w0.de t North Mitigation options ��}} I,-' (t�j Residual risk 2 Residual risk 3. Residual risk 4. Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme Overall residual risk None ❑ Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ ExtrerQV Recommended inspection interval Data ❑ Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe l B&.ic Tree Risk Assessmes it Form Client 6- r i 5' - or . Date �C l = Time %9 ifi Address/Tree location i i '� _ t Ly it Tree no. JM 14 Sheet �_ of _�P,_ Tree species Amr dbh Height _5 Crown spread dia. r Assessors) t: Tools used Time frame - ti 'sr i i � � 'fq 1" � ji � � � � i F k _ 9Y ��`���11�� f._.;';" T�fP.;,.;... .�__•.: .�... N._ ..4 �.e�..- .•..i.,. ..-.�_..� .. �-�.. mil. a .wii� a-__ ... i • L { A � - 5 � i - 3 .j— ��E:.- _.S.i —. 3. 3...._ 3 ti.Y.= Target zone in occupancy E 'S 2 rate 1—rare $ a n. = Target description Target protection ; _ X 2—accasional , M U ++ m Q 41 3—frequent a aa.xip' 4-constant W a. 1`Z1L a 2 3 4 --_- =i3._, a .:i? � Y.-_ �a i•� E Y -- yKJ.r' -F r --r . i, �-'r� b�_�T'"'? F �.:H: `:.::} Y.9.. - . 3: ':��. iS. �YY .. �.:_4 ... 3 '�- i- ..:�-3S � i- History of failures Topography Flatu Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes None13 Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited vol u e❑ Saturated ElShallower Compacted' 4 Pavement over roots % Describe Prevailing wind directioCommon weather Strong winds*.ice❑ snow Heavy rain Describe Vigor Low ❑ ANo"rmal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonalj)4 None (dead)❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic Pests/Biotic /Ytoi �O'>:irLgt6we, j t'i S&i'-1 Abiotic Species failure profile Branches[]Trunk❑ Roots Describe Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Ful10 Wind funneling❑ Relative crown size Small ❑ Medlum l(l Large❑ CrowndensitySparse❑ Normal Dense f,�,jLnteriorbranches Few❑ Normal Dense❑ Wines/Mistletoe/Mass❑ Recent or expected change in load factors _ .r F - /� - s3 7 -: 3y x��('4 y -.r - /,a�r` +1�� � �,'r/xy � ■����^YY� i T Z .t[1* -• �' F - `_�r.�%{ �{ gycs y�'�yi, 'L �� a �'-< �� 4 r. -. � s _ t Er. � - ` r }-....k�. 1 .�_t.+}.?_.� Y _._' .Y, f_�:•Y _. s,�. .::. ,ti._ i 1, "'sx, r.+. . � 1. .:.F . ;.`rv_...4J` �.15 :R �}Sy._� YJ C� ,.y S� $ .. ^-_ ..# — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crownW LCR Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches ❑ % overall Max, dia. Codominant ❑ included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weak attachments �l[ Cavity/Nest hole fl circ. Over -extended branches f� Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ other Response growth Conditions) of concern Part Size Fail Distance Part Size Fail Distance Load on deflect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Signi€icantg1l. Likellhoadoffailure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ lmminent�( —Trunk— — Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible $1 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 v Lean , ii� � 7 Corrected? Response growth Response growth C Condition (s) of concern Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Load on defied N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihoodoffailure Improbable❑ Possible Probable 0 Imminent k Likelihood of failure Improbable El Possible❑ Probable 13 imminent 0 Likelihood Consequences Failure & Impact Failure Impact Target g (framMatrlx1) Condition(s) (Target number Tree part m -description) of contem d c s s "e Rtsk m 3 o T ;,� rating „ r N ba C c yu (from E a a j W -j j Z to En MattIX2) 3, 1'} Y '- Y H `! t� _ i 3 } _ SF 7 t 1 Y '_.'x.� .S}:4t., a'43 �i _. Y-- ;_{G f� _FL 1 ,�)t-u`�,..i.�ti �o J o�f'�`-s_-`�k I s b.• �i-�. J �lt �'-� a �4 'Y,s,y� y 3`+q ti i�u_rY - %ys,_-.r. fry' fa Zs `.':��` a -.�' n}✓k - '. 4-Y f s k'-jar ix --.-�- k -.1 A-s" . __: ;.r z k x Matsix I. Likelihood matri)L xFgym wY y ~, k,._. _ °ll rr,�.,.t�E� �.y�,� z •7€ i 4' lay j�51,j4 3�,ry�.lt.,IM4,- .�'�t1 MoFYixZ Risk rating matrix. li�iYi FY✓- . s,,; �„✓ .s�^ .��.•f �•� l „e,.-y. � t 1�� ��l-. E(4 ie'°f#h��A�,�r5 9 ;04- EE. .1 ,ys c�:�l •£p]i� :x Y_r, ,y �. { ���`4 y -�-:1����� 4l � '.i �Q �t .. a: �� �,1�Jw _i i; � ,•� ,.��. i � r.?��� E� is Notes, IV 2. 3. 4, _ s J .— V North Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High Extreme ❑ Overall residual risk None ❑ Low ❑ Moderate ❑ HighX Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data ❑ Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment neededWo ❑Yes-Type/Reasor} Inspection limitations WNone OVislbility ❑Access ❑Vines []Root collar buried Describe Client .0 Address/Tree location Tree species Assessor(s) Bask Tree Risk Assessment Form Date` r Tree no. Sheet of dbh iI Height - Crown spread dia, ZZ�! f Tools used Time frame � F --� � - -1= G f - - - p fi i A..�� �HS.;J_�'i •�`f� �. S�S.,.� j F" -IL T � 4 ") .��`._ . �` �7 � i .! i;_ wr "t,:F"yt,-i5�,.� F EZy' Target zone m occupancy E c c I c r� = rate 1-rare a° c ° Target description Target protection —�-� % x *� �n p �4 2-occasional 3-frequent L U S 4-constant n, a yn r !® do 2 3 4 History of failures!—W'W M i' 4-Y16 Topography Flatlo Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes None© Grade change Site clearing El Changed soil hydrology Root cuts El Describe Soil conditions Limited volumApSaturated ❑ ShallowV Compactedt( Pavement over rootsig % Describe Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds ice ❑ snow El Heavy rain[] Describe Vigor Low ❑ Normal*1 Hig ❑ Foliage None (Sea a���, None (dead)❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests/Biotic. 6� � /. f? r`Y�T�' � Abiotic Species failure profile BranchesV Trunk Roots❑ Describe Wind exposure Protected❑ Partial ❑ FultQ Wind funnelingli Relative crown size Small❑ Medium Large ❑ Crown density Sparse❑ Normal Dense❑ interior branches Few❑ Norma Dense Mnes/Mistletoe/Mass© Recent or expected change in load factors Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Dead twigs/branches ❑ % overall Broken/Hangers Number over -extended branches ❑ Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped Flush cuts 14 Other — Crown and Branches — Cracks ❑ Lightning damage 0 Max, dia. Codominant ❑ included bark El Max. dia. Weak attachments Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Previous branch failures F � Similar branches present ❑ Dead/Missing bark © Cankers/Galls/B rls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay Raised Lion -tailed W ConksEl Heartwood decay ❑ Response growth Conditions} of concern Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A Q Minor Cl, Moderate ❑ Significantkk Likelihood of failure ImprobableCI Possible Probable 9, imminent Q —Trunk— Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark textu re/color ❑ Codominant sterns ❑ included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Lightning damage Heartwood decay[] Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper 0 Lean ` Corrected? Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant Q Likelihood of failure ImprobableE3 Possible ❑ Probable Q Imminent ❑ — Roots and Root Collar -- Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms 0 ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Load an defect N/A ❑ Minor Q ModerateQ Significant`4 l � Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderatelg Significant Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable 0 Imminent 13 Uhelihoodof failure Improbable© Possible❑ Probable 0 Imminent ❑ . r g .6- __ - - - - E+:Yaa"- _ - - .�sf'-:a - Y_"_ - - - - - - - - - - � �G- Y%zSn• - _ _ _ -.`y �' ,�?`- 'gF:u�'- - '; _y*`.---.�q._v��- ';'-'txa' `._3.-;re_:���. •_wr!=.P..+"x .'1 _ :.;-;,•.5 `^`t=- �'�pr,%:� .:5� zc - - : =4� .-�s__ - u.;;-__ �g:,b.��r_�,r`-. �:rc _:.n.E � _._tea, - ,_.��•n .*;•` �y"� �- °u;<_u. ,��_ fic � ±�i .i;l-��=�s`":s" �t - y�5i� �.<'t r. � � Y'"a R� ":r�'�+`-l: .�. -,�,�' Y^^rr'6. .r`- r.- -kt. LIkeiihaod Failure & impact ionsequentes r., Failure impact Target (from Matrix 2] Candition(s) (Target number Tree part ,, or description) of concern Risk E a - in v rating o a m c a 8. " p E 3' 3 # '� F iw c c (from S � In a � Matrix 2) • y 43 T '�t'� p} yc. -re- �'�, 5 � - to 'S - '� "k ak "�', r�'' $ �. >',h y'F, �x Y n l4i,T 2 «-+F C .l#: r',�� .rtr" �S-Tin .iW_F�+'t•� ,tY: [ L s f�',h W.-e% s/r_ -f: --_ � ,J, .;-�j .. rT7 ._.�+i ;�),�5•"Jse: _ _ W ,550 7O}���. -.=�'�"� h.:� _..-�.vm � ����__a �:ai e, �_.t;� .1`�_-f ts•_r. h ::.-� .. _ � � :�'k" ?-lam.-., v_L f. _ � _�� �_ _ — t_ �K =r[l�-_:`=- - +y3Y','=:•'r'+'_-_ .. _,', �-�� _ -, = Matrixl. Likelihood matrix, dalleC� '-15iF NO� - �i\ y 5 fit. ��4 m vi a .. i K:.,�•-4 fo5rl;� #I?' Mjy'EIC��nl#�y� n�trfifAj��y{�l�elys MatO2. Risk rating matrbc. ttan NF4V ���fl���7f = �:r_��Y � � .; ������� �>✓����ir��:.'Su� �4i«�LRE'�.vL® ��J=. Notes, explanations, descriptions North Mitigation options d u r� -.t Residual risk z, Residual risk _ 3• Residual risk _ q, Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low © .Moderate © High ❑ Extreme ❑ Overall residual risk done U Low © Moderate C7 High © Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interldal Data © Final © Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ElNo ©Yes Type/Reason Inspection limitations ❑None ©Visibility ❑Access ©Vines ©Root collar buried Describe INK BTree Risk Assessment Form c✓ Client &04 Date/.,?, Time Address/Tree 6cation 0- .� Tree no. Sheet of Tree species dbh Height-3� Crown spread dia. ZC> Assessor(s) Tools used Time frame -. r Target zone occupancy E L � C rate 1—rare t0 c Target description Target protection y X 2-0=sional M 3 u � r[ 3—frequent � > � F 4—constant 4 CC a. km no 2 3 4 r v:2Y'� "e,-n,�. History of failures ' ' Topography Flato slope❑ % Aspect Site changes Nonefik Grade changefi Site clea ng❑ Changed soil hydrology[:] Root cuts❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited volurnAksaturated © Shallower Compacted, Pavement over roots kx2% Describe Prevailing wind directio 6'j Common weather Strong wlnd,�Q Ice❑ Snow El Heavy ra€n❑ Describe Vigor Low ❑ ormal � Hig Foliage None (sea al)gl None (dead)❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pasts /Biotic4-cffe-e— �`t'YJT�Yr^»r'ly1c .r4;0i7t>1Abiotic Species failure profile Branches% Trunk❑ Roots ❑ Wind exposure Protected❑ Partial❑ FulIV Crown density Sparse)a Norma[E] Dense❑ Recent or expected change in load factors Wind funneling Relative crown size Small[] MedlumjQ Large — El interior branches Few[] Normallo Dense❑ Vines/Mistletae/Moss ❑ Unbalanced crown © LCR % Dead twigs/branches % overall l Broken/Hangers Number Over -extended branches 0 Pruning history Crown cleaned 13 Thinned 0 Reduced 0 Topped El Flush cuts Y Other — Crown and Branches — Cracks 17 Lightning damage El Max. dia. Codominant 13 Included bark ❑ Max. dia. Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nesthole °f circ. Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Raised Dead/Missing bark 0 Cankers/GallslBurls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Lion -tailed Conks © Heartwood decay 0 Response growth Conditions) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ©. ModeratAQ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable© Possible❑ Probable Imminent 13 —Trunk— Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze Lightning damage Heartwooddecay❑ Conks/Mushrooms❑ Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Lean ` Corrected? Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A © Minor 0 ModerateJ4 Significant 0 Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ PossibleD Probable,p Imminent ❑ — Roots and Root Collar — Collar burled/Nat visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity© %circ. Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Root plate lifting ❑ soil weakness ❑ Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Load on deflect N/A ❑ Minor © ModerateQ Significant© Load on defect N/A 0 Minor Cl Moderate k Significant Likelihood of failure ImprobablePossible Probable 13Imminent © Likellhoadoffailure Improbable© Possible❑ Probable' imminent r Likelihood Consequences Failure &Impact Failure Impact Target (from MatrIXI) Condition(s) (Target number Tree part m , or description) of concern « T m Risk m m D rating a R o E Z' 3 y m E Tm t' w, o c c 5 (from E p M E 7 T V) S 2 N a! MatriX2} 4 fitF [ F_._�s- - �1. +4k��,i ZY4 f a y y'-� 4. - OWN t j 2y x F Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. 1.l._ `II�rf1i jr r::`. t���YYc� : f z ot�lit!ttlIatiki yyKr' TTl�11#y1i�pT Matrix 2. Risk rating matrbL 3t\ �r+��%✓ate,; r � � dY J ����I�SY �.4R✓� ffti¢�IX c ,?ktY rc} 4-�'�� i-✓�Z-.-- c _..i�S ! sri.: �•7i .Y °�� :.I7F���"�i�` � ^r ��$�r ' �� descriptions Mitigation 1, 2. 3, 4. 't. Nor0i Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Overall residual risk None ❑ Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High O Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data ❑ Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe Client C-,1<14 Address/Tree location Tree species Assessor(s) Basic `free Risk Assessment Form `i,6 Date IB C rS` � Time4Q.,'001 L c Tree no. Sheet ? dbh : Height Crown spread dia, 0 Tools used Time frame -- tJ a Z-.i NO l f �F Yp �. �3y J } ��- G I}. f f 1 - P J it ta- gjn ? - - f J jyy�'�J 4 -.. i"F- �. _..._.s�`._.,µ._7.-� t_�.� .+.4-'.._. '7':_�L"'F Ys-_� r:IS�F i! I 'I�-._L J:. +�'�Y_�}-:�A +�.._ w, f —j _ _ Target zone o Occupancy y c rate c 41 .g c Target description Target protection m n + �p - « x � Wi 2--occasional 3—frequent � > ,C N tt � .�� F Fmp, h 4—constant E a a. 1 X ea r AD r"'io 2 4 __�.. _��....-�--._r,.. _� ,. w__'h. -,. „�00, r.._� rt c hl" > «, i._,.,- #. _"r --3� 3�z __ __ __-�?r ±•_f� �;.,i History of failures v� Z S Topography Flatly] Slope[:] %Aspect ' �- Site changes None ❑ Grade change Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts Describe Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated ❑ ShallowN CompactecIR Pavement over roots)lLf 3 __% Describe Prevailing wind direction Corrarnonweather Strong winds Ice❑ Snow Heavy rain© Describe f kva 1 �,. .-r k � F- -,� -'' -_ � r T ��e�l;'E��Itii-�t�d•-�p�c�e�'��fi{ef e,..� � � 't �- _ _'t '� '� 9 Vigor Low ❑ Normal K Nigh ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) El None (dead)❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic Pests/Biotic Ablotic Speciesfallure profile Branchep Trunk.W Roots❑ Describe Wind exposure Protected❑ Partial ❑ Full%d Wind funneling"; Relative crown size Small ❑ MediumV Large❑ Crown density Sparsag Normal Dense Interior branches Few)d Normal❑ Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or expected change in load factors Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Dead twigs/branches Ih % overall Broken/Hangers Number over -extended branches Pruning history Crown cleaned )RD Thinned XP Reduced 0 Topped ❑ Flush cuts 1513 Other — Crown and Branches -�- Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark ElMax. dia. Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole "% circ. Previous branch failures similar branches present ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ sapwood damage/decay El Lion -tailed 39 Conics ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑. Moderate ❑ Significanoo Likelihood of failure Improbable[] Possible❑ Probable ❑ lmminentX —Trunk— Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Lightning damage El Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Lean Corrected? Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Sign&ican�$i Likelihood of failure ImprobableC7 Possible❑ Probable ❑ Imminent)a — Roots and Root Collar �- Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conics/Mushrooms ❑ Doze ❑ Cavity ❑ %circ. Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Load on deflect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant I Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significanv iikelihoodoffallure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ Imminent© Likelihoadoffailure Improbable❑ Possible Probable ❑ Imminent El - az i k I �`r,.-,� s 7.Yi_.�s i r+-._::� R15�C����'�(i�".��i��f�F1 .s..... i:.� n .�3-.:-:,i �`r.. ..�9_. �'s,.x ,t.s.� � I •.�' I Likelihood Consequences Failure & Impact Failure Impact Target lfmM Matrlxl) Condition($) (Target number Tree part m „ or description) of concern c s Risk o E 2 rating w ii u"i o C� 3 m aA s° c (from no a T D vnr --s :! z ii4 �n matr&2) `` 'rry `i inin} _ ;.2:r -- s .ems '' 4xn k7- Fl r Z- T t ,8 >x:.-3 - -.'ice;, _ i.-±� + dTi -.f :t 5' _. 1, as,-'. ry 05 Matrix i.Likelihood matrix. 3%71h r t `s��ilJptfl}# ? k ti L _ „rz y rira�s IU�tkel�ukiiy, �tigralt+lsl �11ck _`3nY� _��',r l�iiil1y;; Matrix2. Risk rating matri>- Y- `�' 3��ilri�ci�t`,, ���� � � xi•CnnSer��texrces��I��� ��� �� � ' tieer`1rpategiT%Ylsv9r RDINinatr spar ,x'..'Y'fl, el nlle3` : Motes, explanations, descriptions options North 1.T IdeA�._ `%I /d.�'�'UKDE. CL/I( f� �'�� i,�-�� 'EC. `/ Residual risk 2, Residual risk 3, Residual risk 4. Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme Overall residual risk Done ❑ 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 Babic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client �na (� _ r 1t ~S /Ti)A Date 2 — — ~ 2c.) Time 2— •'�`� riz7 Address/Tree location ti 4 Tree no.. Sheet_ of_ Tree species dbh Height �' Crown spread dia. Assessors) Tools used Time frame Target zone m o Occupancy c E c s ratere ,q c Target description Target protection a s X 14 Ln 2_occa -occasional 3--frequent 7 yp F p M r 4--constant a E a 1 2 3 4 �-g.i History of failures ;r"—< Z.,� 'd / tj 6UaA Topography Flatq slope❑ %Aspect Sitechanges NoneW Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology[] Rootcuts❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited volume'] Saturated ❑ ShallowtQ Compactedi -Pavement over roots lei % Describe Prevailing wind directio �,a Commonweather Strong winds] Ice ❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain❑ Describe Vigor Low ❑ Normal % Hth ❑ Foliage None (seapnq[)Mj None(dead)0 Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Species failure profile Branches❑ TrunkW�Roots❑ Wind exposure Protected El Partial❑ FulljQ Wind funnelingpR Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium 9LLarge ❑ Crown density Sparse❑ Normal% Dense❑ Interior branches Few❑ NormaO Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or expected change in load factors ^'cr�i -- Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches%Q % overall Max. dia. Codominant� included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weak attachments V% Cavity/Nest hose % circ. Over -extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures, Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history Dead/Missing bark © Cankers/Gaits/Burls © Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed 0Q Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts 19 Other Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fail Distance Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant ❑ Likelihaodoffailure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable © Imminent ❑ likelihoodofiailure Improbable© Passible❑ Probable 0 imminent — Trunk — — Roots and Root Coifar — Dead/Missing bark Abnormal bark texture/color ©T nllarburied/Not visible © Depth Stern girdlingCodominant stems`' Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑oze ❑ 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 Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ SignificantlZ Ukelihoodoffallute Improbable❑ Posslblkp Probable 13 Imminent ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible Probable 0, Imminent 0 'rAz1f, AL • �.<.. 7...�,9M.'Lv:'9i:. vv':,']lt.±m`�i::;??'a:ii:'-s �-1,-.`k,��rit-..J_3._;s tl,:_4:,+�.....]. _'.a S'} h _t r"-�7. - ff �. l S li �s !...._P».., .._t::_ rl£� .._, tF :..._c,. ,- 3_: ..�:.,.., _�.�- Likelihood Failure & Impact Consequences Failure Impact Target g (fromMotrtml) Condition(s) (Target number Tree part ei t, or description) of concern v c Risk n m ° a �5 rating a c aF a ;i a o L ^^ a 3 m E x Z �n c (from 0v0i MOtdX2) �f�/ y W ' " s �- 9 MT NS � 5 9 is �. 7 ", - if, J -} •hi't'�l( U i t' 6- �`•-" ET t4 `�L ERE, 4-._15 �;'.� - 3 Ti K-•'' zt M -3 a.�� - Y.r a Ijc��..K ��.�, ?-i.',-,�'�`�'�' ��� `�����'; �'ii?�� •rr�-"'�-'k `c 'i `��_ ���".3�£1,-E 45'-3'C ��-��� �Y��� �; '..'�"i`s-3�� �� �� Mat& 1. Likelihood matrix. AbW 0 S�!11@3`s SSrwL�LfSi�ft[[{4cys�t [iy �v ,��! - ;s-,*e_, ryc i�[crj� �'1�( -F�� L�•p�,,)�<j -{ � � .�{� [:.�F '��� 7-:t7P G �))_}i .F'v. L1 �{Li l �fC1OWE ?lvnpprcxaaie ss�r_ti, sf1iPrJz �' iylClt ixZ Risk rating matrix. �2`_.s_?.�. ;va"�: '�'iS-� ;`+��%.'•--�:3�-�"-�`�x�'-'-�.-„'."RYA=��-�.3__LK_ _'�'r1�'=!cl�`=V ti`t:'.'y �`�;��C���'.��'T`�. S - 3 x...s✓ Y. �ry� i - 3 „, S i.yy'�5 _ �"�� i� �:* .c +,yi•=d- �?�.3``-�"_.��,_,i�y�.�`i`- �rt��S�.i�:�� I.F,..�4i� is North Mitigation options i, i R�-tt4 ► �l -eg'4 Residual risk z. Residual risk 1 Residual risk n. Residual risk overall tree risk rating Low© -Moderate[:] High Extreme ❑ overall residual risk [done © Low © Moderate © High © Extreme © Recommended inspection interval Data ©Final © Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reasons Inspection limitations INlone ©Visibility ❑Access ©Vines ORoot collar buried Describe Client (( Address/Tree loca Tree species Assessor(s) ...M:.>._....�..-�.. ,-.x�--�. --... .. .-,�.,.t,-r..._•-n---., -_.-r"�-�.,r.,:..,-e•-.c :Fr,��,�:uHwan-1- - - - -vv�-;e. r'•.r �..}- -.: z_3' --^'y- ,.,*- ��-:_+ a_ - „s:o-'�- ..5 . ..:r�,.3:a`n.r ram;-.-, .s4,.- _; i .^.,Es::._-P''S,�^"r,s:��, r� z ,Zrrs_zr .av *.'�y.:t-N 'ti<�'-� Y-r'-s_G�; _� va ^Ya% c? ti-.r - yt ,.� ..�z.�'? i t_'�;� •� .ut..s - ,` .j- ,"7..-..�iy, L-E,f V,- ^�!' FJ- i? ^�'-� - - 5J J Y---f-f}1 Cn k '�` �� 4N1' i 4 .;-:,N-w �x�:>�1 -o•ti� w.t: s ; );.-.:,,5'_ �-� ." _ ... s-l.kl� - y rS'`= �F .'may' 1 2 �ars�e:�. ir, '-z" ;:1.� S-s.�; C- Target zone s occupancy I. a rate ;? m Target description Target protection 3 3 x 1—rare u u y Gil'1 y X DAB Z—occasional 3—frequent � } tom-• _ 4—constant a a 2 3 4 "Ir.- yy - ���' _ss �. •`"w' - ,-�.. •'-S,. .ti _� r "tt': - �M G.�,z:=�; �-af-�� 3.�}.:e.R�=� _iar-a..y�•.._ `iv.. e:� `_„3, S ��3.i� ' =.J-J:` ry - siL.t..Ii `7' - ^=G"-L...s �[���.¢ �r/yyyr � =Sri : _d - -,r3 �... a ��-'�:• 4 r-�� •ti �7: h.e..f .N'1G,�S' zLi' �'�?w;.' ":i1. �-' � 'e-�- i_� r..3��-.1`n ti''.'. -:ln =.�:-.4i1r IL _ •} r. _..���z�, 2��; C.F?���{4�'C�r�v� _:��" :�ti =:.'! .:,5•r - � an - �1. a'S"-''x,- :' i(; .;"";rA'?-...•t~iG �'L �--.f'-•a.�l-..--�C-,_.fr ..��it:•y:iya-£z t{�"I:u,.'-`:'iy �n_ - � _'b„t.� r'91L Si.C'M�iS]i•.-- :'�k':'t'_t-.'..�, r..=lr Y.���� Y f � •.'3 .`Y� '�Ls�.^„�+'_-`3 ._'fs�Y ..]�r� Y'r -_.?`= 1T;.`E! ,F�.'�%3.� sCF a e�:�t. -,5-�, f+---�.-.:3}l. ..1•�. - � [! !-�"u_ History offailures _�n f 1 W4- Topography FlaWl Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes None❑ Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology El Root cuts❑ Describe -_ Sod conditions Limited volurpeV Saturated ❑ ShallowVU Compactedffi( Pavement over roots P( % Describe Prevailing wind directio 0 Common weather Strong w€nd l Ice El Snow❑ Heavy rain El Describe Vigor LowVj Normpal� @ High ❑ Foliage None (sea nalw None (dead)❑ Normal % Chlorotic % NecroticGLL Pests/BioticLd �°4 s IV i Al�iOtlC species failure profile Branchesv Trunk© Roots[] Describe � Y st �r - _ .,� - - .�..L'.+,',r. ���.- - �S � .r•� : _t n-- fi`s ;- �•'.v =., s- `�,� a ,�3„ � ,l _ ��.:� I '.4" Wind exposcire Protected❑ Partial❑ Full(` Wind funnelinAW Relative crown size Small❑ Mecilumil Large❑ Crown density SparseX Norma[E] Dense❑ Interior branches Few09 Normal❑ Dense❑ lines/Mistletae/Mass ❑ Recent or expected change in load factors - ® Chown and.Branches Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches UI % overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max, dia. Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hale %circ. aver -extended branches ❑ Previous branch failuresA �— Similar branches present ❑ Pruning history/ Dead/Missing bark C7 Cankers/Galls/ urls © Sapwood damage/decay❑ Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised Reduced ❑ Topped El Lion -tailed ConksEl Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts 1A Other Response growth. Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall'Distance Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑. ModerateR Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A © Minor ❑ Moderate)Q SignfficantEl Likelihood o#failure Improbable© Passible ❑ Prababiel Imminent © likelihood offailure Irnprobab€e❑ Passible ❑ Probable `R Imminent ❑ —Trunir \1r — Roots and Root Collar Dead/Missing bark ❑ . Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Codominant stems ❑ included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Lightning damage Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Lean . Corrected? Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part SEze Fall Distance Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity %circ. Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Root plate lifting ❑ 5oll weakness ❑ Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Load an defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significantil Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Passible❑ Probable'N imminent ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate[] Significant ❑ likelihood of failure Improbable© Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ 4 Likelihood Failure & Impact Consequences Failure Impact Target (fmm Matrlx1) Condition(s) (Target number Tree part u , a, of concern c v C Risk or description) m 3 '� c a m c o Y 8 rating 0. o $ i= T m nn c a (from j z ? in Matrix2) a° o. .v3 ' £n to 777 - •5it-77- - C ELI 1Y C c4 b -� � "lr �4'f`-`�... S; �`,' �,� � .x .y d . a,� - r� rY? S'.„ ��> . � - .+ 1;; _:•ice _ � ._. 4=. }°`4�x� 'i: F l Z Y 1} n`. 9 - �' _ -�' - 4 'c. l R 4'. yy7777777 Si Mat ix1. Likelihood mark ..... V�I�IrT,jyj��(��. A-•.�H�T,.. x 4� v5 1�_ 1 .�_ - k� - i5LL Xrlll-�S: I �1.:-. MaVIK 2. Risk rating matrix. bni�L�tl�F Nt9de4�Ct rite , {Q� . `{� North Mitigation options , 5 S Residual risk 2, Residual risk 3. Residual risk 4. Residual risk overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ig, Extreme ❑ overall residual risk None ❑ Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data ❑ Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason inspection limitations WNone ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe 1 ' Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client '� !-' , �i f i • [)ate ' Time Address/Tree location s O. Irci Tree no. /O Sheet _ _ of Tree species c dbh Height_ Crown spread dia. 1,4i Assessor(s) C Tools used Time frame Target zone 0 Occupancy ; c c c E c Target description Target protection s rate 1 -rareo 0 u+ c n u .a x x z-occasional 3—frequent L �• • f�� t `�� ' � Fm 4—constant r= 2 CL / � � 3 hr 4 History of failures ragZ . G *'O5 e7t 777f i Topography F1a6p Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes None Grade change Site clearing Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited volum4 Saturated ❑ ShallowfI. Compacted Pavement over rootsl % Describe Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds Ice Snow El Heavy rain❑ Describe Vigor LowkA• Normal ❑ Hi h ❑ Foliage None (seasonal)❑ None (dead)❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic Pests/Biotic `� lsd f/iox-e -_ Abiotic Species failure profile Branched Trunkf, Roots❑ Describe Windexposure Protected❑ Partial❑ Fui* Wind funneling5L f Relative crown size Small❑ Mediurr 'I Large❑ Crown density Spars Normal❑ Dense❑ Interior branches Fevi>4at, Normal❑ Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ Recent or expected change in load factors — Crown and Branches -- Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR p/ Cracks © Lightning damage Dead twigs/branches ❑ % overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ 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 13 Crown cleaned © Thinned ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Raised ❑ Lion -tailed Conks © Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts 1 Other Response growth Condition(s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑. Moderate ❑ SignificanIV load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significanttk likelihood offailure improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ imminent6e, Likelihood offailure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ ImminentAk --Trunk Roots and Root Collar — Dead/Missing bark. Abnormal bark texture/colortL Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks $q Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls Sap ooze ❑ Lightning damage Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth Poor taper Lean Corrected? Response growth Condition (s)ofconcern "dv�Z i % �2, Part Size Fall Distance Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Dead ❑ Decay Cl Conks/Mushrooms ❑ ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Cracks ❑ Cut/Damages{ roots. Distance from trunk Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant ❑ I Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ likelihoodoffailure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable 0 Imminent❑ Jj\ Likelihood of failure Improbable 13 Possible Probable 0 Imminent Likelihood Consequences Failure & impact Failure Impact Target (from Matrix1) Condition(s) (Target numher Tree part of concern [ ar Risk or description) m a rating cpp E (from E E 4 ° 's 7 in vi Matrtx2j ao a t°n -� r - 1 -� .!`,._ � i 4o-/ � i', �� 4. -.:f � F-� nY-;f �-^{:� (,. 7y� s•-' - .Sr -!� .S ',fa_ 7.�F�3 EU-,lY .] jays '`c � • t`'-v - y�, +;. _ S, � �� s <s�, - 4- - .G S`-.S � �� � - � sY � �„ � J f � 3 � mot` y� UPIN- , maTIRc' _ Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. } ik �, iilCY. 34— 1oS�iI[S n�s4 . C�{l�i��y.446f1iliv frrigl = z= L1nlI lY UnI1y Y f Y3 oikatl1lk% , } ... 0-1,�lt� MatrixZ Risk rating matrix. ''`'l�iOW mitigation options s. 4. North Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk overall tree risk rating Law ❑ Moderate© High Extreme ❑ overall residual risk none ❑ Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High © Extreme © Recommended inspection interval Data OFinal © Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ©Yes-Type/Reason inspection limitations done ©Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ©Root collar buried Describe ISABa4ic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client �' L dA Date ()gV- � 2O�D Time % ;' � _r'07 Address/Tree location CA, 2s-!79''fP- e=rl "TAevvelstA Tree no, I Sheet of Tree species 2)i-7 dbh f 2- " Height i ' Crown spread dia. r2—' C ` Assessor(s) Tools used Time frame a_ Target zone u •p oCCUpanLj/ +�"+ � C � t 1 rate le Y tl0 Target description Target protection 3 - x 2--occasional +� e v �., auyp a •gy x p rq 3—frequent fi a C!/ • v `~ 4-constant E a k/! l � a` a°1c 1 304 2 3 4 < �,3y ?� '.l X }�- i i"` k•' },. d• l t">U 1, 3.� jh 5 , t i � �� ` 11't � �rT PF Y 3�^ y 1 €�iJY �' � hJ' Y, Y h �}'^ C s' t� 1 l�_i History of failures% 1-1 4'dW (�f,har-5 Topography Flaip Slope❑ % Aspect ch Site changes None19 Grade ange❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology Root cuffs❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited volumeM Saturated ❑ ShallowlK compactedlill Pavement over rootsl c`a % Describe 4Prevailing wind directioia�^ Comriion weather StrongwindsV Ice❑ Snow❑ Heavy rain❑ Describe Vigor Low ❑ Normal. High ❑ Foliage None (se sonai)'� None (dead) El Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests/1Biotic,54_i/f,PVAtQ1i`LKHQW_ c rid Abiotic Species failure profile Branches Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe Wind exposure Protected Partial FuillA Wind funnelingO Relative crown size Small El MediumK Large❑ Crown density Sparse NormafQ Dense Interior branches Few N anal❑ se Vines/Mistletoe/Mosss13 Recent or expected change in load factors' �� l IsAn : De w ) yi i, W k 4cc y' l r b#efts€ +ntlr5is�,4dttri� ti �ac� t�ffluG r� 4� `z_5._. i_v >rr,� >_e . _ , r�s 3_ r,_ �_- i _. e_: ✓s.,i >r __b.. SSP :.:.4_ s ...f._r_ _, f_� i,An"! -..'YF 3Lc` �+F >s3t`•.+-'e3w -- _:v, �5 ... — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑ Dead twigs/branches 1f % overall Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole____ circ. over -extended branches Pruning history _% Previous branch failures U VoAldid Similar branches present ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/B Is © Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Crown cleaned C3 Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed l Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts other Response growth Conditions) 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 ❑ likelihoodoffailute Improbable❑ Possible© 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 DR, 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 C Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderated, Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure improbable❑ Possible 0 Probable C] Imminent ❑ Likelihood of failure improbable❑ Possible 0 Probable 13 Imminent 0 t4V/ Likelihood Consequences Failure & Impact Failure Impact Target (from Mahlxl) CondEtion(s) (Target number Tree part m ., ofcancem Risk ordeseriptian) m � T a c o m m rating a w o E t3 ° E e Z `ou °c c �' (from N 4Q L9 Y a GI GO in } en Mat&2) ix- Y AM i -2A '✓tiy - E M = f R 't 77 f 4ax ; -- 1 T ! Matrix I. Likelihood matrix. p 3 maa tii[i€e�t�.itittliP '13 t� 99��yJ�ci.�((�[[,r�,�..f lf.%�1�{4�'`.pRjjy ?` Mawix2. Risk mOng matruc PW Notes, explanations, descriptions Mitigation options 2, 3. a. North Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk overall tree risk rating low ❑ Moderate ❑ High hl Extreme ❑ overall residual risk None ❑ low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data ❑ Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason inspection limitations Done ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe Client r Address/Tree pc Tree species Assessor(s) dbh/-C Tools used 91c� �. sessmeid Form _ Date Time/ EE�_j Tree no. 1 2- Sheet �_ of _ —Height .5 -P Crown spread dia. Time frame f Target zone 0 Occupancy E 'target "target c I � E- c T rate 1-rare c c description protection % % x 2-occasional 44 � � 3-frequent � > � `� 4-constant ro E 0 EL 2 3 4 ''^e'er - y S p�� k c'� _ L'r`� �- ' . �4k-st_. �..h...n t. History of failures cndscj Z:lr IncaumE ILwo- �J9j%� Topography Flat pe❑ % Aspect Site changes None❑ Grade change❑ Site cle nira g❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ Root cuts{ Describe Soil conditions Limited vol!irqeX Saturated ❑ ShallowK CompactedIF Pavement over roots % Describe Prevailing wind directioCommon weather Strong winds)s�ce❑ Snow Heavy rain Describe Vigor Lowjj�rmal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead)❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotics% Pests/Biotic V_e _ y � Abiotic Species failure profile Branches -Trunk❑ Roots ❑ Describe sZ- U K_3 Windexposure Protected❑ Partial❑ Full', Wind funneling Crown density Sparsra Normal❑ Dense❑ Interior branches Few[] Normal❑ Dense❑ Recent or expected change in load factors Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Dead twigs/branchesj.3 , 'p % overall Broken/Hangers Number Over -extended branches 11 Pruning history Crown cleaned 'jl Thinned N- Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Flush cuts 'L Other Relative crown size Small ❑ MediumIlk Large ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ ® Crown and Branches -- Cracks ❑ Lightningdamage ❑ Max, dia. Codominant ❑ Included bark ❑ Max. dia. Weakattachmentsi. Cavity/Nesthole °1 circ. Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Lion -tailed Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Response growth Conditions) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑. Moderate❑ SignificantV Likelihood of failure improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ —Trunk— Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Lightning damage❑ Heartwood decay[] Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Lean Corrected? Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significantl, Likelihood of failure improbable[] Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent — Roots and Root Collar — Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Dead ❑ Decay El Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % circ. Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged rootsIR Distance from trunk Root plate lifting ❑ Soil weakness ❑ Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Load on defied N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ I Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure improbable El Possible 0 Probable ❑ Imminent 0//j\\ Likelihoodoffai€ure Improbable© Possible ❑ Probable 0 imminent ❑ -rtf, /7- qqqf Likelihood Consequences Failure & Impact Failure Impact Target (from MGtrfxi) Condition(s) {Target number Tree part of concern m c Risk or description) a €� s z rating a o E ;" 3 m eua =� E Y ,L ao s_ p (from Matr&2) (All ffi i ` ifA ' 1 c YQ NO" +`i s��' � �'i�4 ; � 3-, u `'i R�- "�'-, .� � x.3r� .<`., ...+.`�_�- � ?.�—,+„- sa .�' y.,� �l`: �.� .f �' :t .3 -,� .C�.itc,•� 'I-s- /5i ass ti�a3�Y.f K'F R K Y F sF .N--.'fi` 1-21 Matrix!. Likelihood matrix. alllipnFnrpc- .G ��....._:.�h1��y Ip+aSihi� '�sEtet .. llkE��t►TIr,N, , ,Sp'Iew Kam° Mairix2, Risk ratin-z matrix. 7a�rj{�1h0'deijUS �i`c3pstgRuertce�sl� , larura�rc�a �� �t � �IJtII�P��-�` � Jam_ ��1(16 �>� ��� }��� 3� -� S��j•J "' L��� �"� 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 needed1io ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations )L'Ef one ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe Client Address/Tree loca Tree species r r 1 Assessor(s) Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Date 2X�2—Time I�.'� / -- -e L&C,r Tree no. %,; Sheet Of _ dbh ft _Height Crown spread dia. 2_ _ Tools used Time frame ^� � _(,:P' _�(\ �5�'_ f ( - � rti - _y5 � - ;}•. YL—ti-•4`F -. `ra _!L� � �F'` FiLCI _r' FF 4 _ _ �._ � l � 9a�..— � �5t�,t _ _ - Target zone nC Occupancy r i A race 1—rare o �+ e ° c Target description Target protection occasional Y a X .w u1 3—frequent s; w i p 4—constant E a 0� 1 P0 11 . z 3 4 'a._ - History of failures Cri t4lk _ t4l I VP'C— Topography HAP Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes None[] Gr de change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology[:] Root cuts)l Describe Soil conditions Limited volume% Saturated ❑ Sha€lowU Compacted Pavement over rootstE3 _(91210 Describe Prevailing wind directior�� Common weather Strongwlndsos ice Snow Heavy rain Describe Vigor Low* Normal ❑ High ❑ / Foliage None (seasonal} None (dead) ❑ Normal Y / Ch€orotic F. / E� €Vecroticc _ % Pests/Biotic d'L�6'f� Ahlotic Species failure profile Branchesl-Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe - &Vr It— [ ::t,r k;ir--a:r :.;1. .i s.. ._�-. - .�s,•-��:,-�i..r-- [' - _, S��W���l�. �,,h.,..ti-1 --. - .�r,. -?.,5 _ Windexposure Protected[] Partial❑ Fuil❑ Windfunneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium❑ Large ❑ Crown density Sparse❑ Norma[E] Dense[] Interior branches Few❑ Normal[] Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑ Recent or expected change in load factors Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR % Dead twigs/branches)K %overall Broken/Hangers Number over -extended branches 1`7 Pruning history Crown cleaned )I Thinned ❑ Reduced ❑ Topped bL Flush cuts 4k Other — Crown and Branches — Cracks ❑ Max. dia. Codominant ❑ Max- dia. Weak attachments A Previous branch failures ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Lion -tailed W, Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑. Moderate ❑ Significantil Likelihoodoffailure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ —Trunk— Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ Lightning damage El Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth Poor taper El Lean o Corrected? Response growth Condition (s) of concern Lightning damage ❑ included bark ❑ Cavity/Nest hole% circ. similar branches present ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significanty Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ — Roots and Root Collar — Collar burled/Nat visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ ooze ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Response growth Condition (s) of concern Cavity ❑ % circ. Distance from trunk Soil weakness ❑ Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Load on defeat N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable 0 Possible 0 Probable 0 imminent 0 Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible 0 Probable 0 imminent 0 Likelihood Consequences & Impact Failure ImpactFailure Tar et � (fromMatrixlJ Condition{s} (Target number Tree part H1 or description) of concern _a o c 3 m c ? o v Risk �, a A o Yy cn rating y i'r 7 77 WO E ? �Jr,,n j L } qj n Matrix 2) D. V) M z in Al RPM - �S, "# f. f , "t Matrix 1, Likelihood matrb,. 7777t lik y n � i fiy - 5a_es1t`attke tri�a'b� --�i'kel Matrix2. Risk rating matrix. e-. j ."' Oft �r.._�e,-� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V+t1L%ke�L .1 �,j tee nuinr atelr_tfE urn y[ 2 3 �,c t♦� y���lf€���i ,z. � .. �,-i�Vri'�l Mitigation o a, 3. North Residual risk Residual ride Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate© High ❑ Extremel( Overall residual risk None ❑ Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data ❑ Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment neededANo ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations 11PNone ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe Client U 1&f Address/Tree o ation Tree species Assessor(s) Basic Tree Risk Assessment r Date> ZC- Pad 26Zf; Time Tree no. / Sheet^ of dbh Heigt hl Crown spread dia. Tools used Time frame t _., "- 7 Target zone occupancy c s rate o Target description Target protection X 2_occasonal u �y.•a � 3—frequent 'ls y � � 4—constant A. G. ec 2 3 4 History of failures �i�:� Topography Flail Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes None❑ Grade change❑ site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology19 Root cuts❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited volume❑ Saturated 13 Shallovito a CompactedAPavement over roots % Describe Prevailing wind directio Common weather Strong (wlndsIycye❑ S�nnowE3 Heavy rate❑ Describe Vigor Low ❑ Normal �L High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal)) None (dead)❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests/Biotic Ablotic Species failure profile Branches ❑ Trunk1A Rootsig Wind exposure Protected❑ Partial Full Wind funneling❑ Crown density Sparse❑ Normal Dense[] interior branches Few❑ Normalig,Dense❑ Recent or expected change in load factors Relative crown size Small ❑ MediumjQ Large ❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑ -- 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 °% circ. overextended branches ❑ Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present 0 Pruning history Dead/Missing barltiq Cankers/Galls/Burls Sapwood damage/decay Crown cleaned k Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion -tailed © Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size FallDistance Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑. Moderate *-Significant0 likelihood of failure improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable V-5 imminent ❑ —Trunk— Dead/Missing bark NL Abnormal bark texture/color Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ CracksVIN Sapwood damage/decay`K Cankers/Galls/Burls, Sap ooze Lightning damage Heartwood decay[] Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Lean Corrected? Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Load on deflect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ ModerateM Signi iicant ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible 13 Probable k Imminent 0 Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate© Significant ❑ Likelihood offailure improbable❑ Possible Probable ❑ imminent ❑ — Roots and Root Collar — Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling, Dead 1, Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Ooze V( Cracks 4 Cut/Damaged rootsA Root plate lifting ❑ Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Cavity ❑ % circ. Distance from trunk Fall Distance Soil weakness ❑ Load on defect N/A 13 Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ 5ignificant ❑ Likelihood of failure improbable Possible 0 Probable 0 Imminent t4 Likelihood Condquences Failure & Impact Failure Impact Target {from Matrix 1J Condition(s) (Target number Tree part m � ordesctiptinn) ofconcern m c ? m mRisk sg E Yratin� E 3 j Matrix2) rn a >" Y .f•� �.r :.F`T .,�� T.... .'=C.>L -'a". _ .ice_ . i- 1 _ _ Y /s .! � 4b L "✓. � { F;1 � L - d� - _ _ L`4.� �P u �'T � � -3 � i. - �Y f..l �s F � K�, .: � 1 rl� - i �' - y - • S Y - �. k4 Y T1� .1 �S- Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. VJ�L�'Y Y_- -r+tAll[�sLTis F, ,�t}S 1.-b xO`BIWe Ijlgly%4 4S Xi Zu C .n 'F. _ ��li �• -y. 1 - �x-h.�: .�.: �-�.tyjS��� �}iFlrrCE��✓ �'Fi. }*�jjT�� �,,� "`!�-C3XT�iv.��{I�E,y�.. Y:, i ..v.��{�`�-�7 504VfII[d�Tx )rASa{I3Ifh F ?t�Lit?_EEr{ x Motrix2. Risk rating matrix. At P. 4 53 S l-1 r- i S`_�f.� .Z ..� �QI01 �.., ..:)KF}��riiF64.� i�_ :. e.� __....-�Y .�t:._���b . f,•�. North Mitigation options 1.� .1 Oq zy I `f "t Ar - SarirC,� Residual risk 2. Residual risk 31 Residual risk 4. Residual risk overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High M, Extreme ❑ overall residual risk None ❑ Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme © Recommended inspection interval Data ❑Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed*lNo ❑Yes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations NNone ❑Vislbifity ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe Gient Address Free Tree Specles - Assessor(si w u ` cn Y Y ®Assessff �mJTlrne re Date - Sheet r-� Free ni o• fn spread dia. CrOV• s "eight -yime #i'at"r►LJ e sF € dbh € zxhhssMg Y�' . s T()atS Used occupancy $ ' syo ram rate �° awn a3 � 3Fs.'2�occasional ;u IJ, -target grotection ¢ 4 $'° sa 4—constant C, r x a. r Target description AS ct Pe 2tT�`;t� hYFlatd Siap e❑ 511 �apngrap V 3 u" __:Z�be Pii �c "= fl scr _rr-E •S'_e"'s.r p RpOt GUtS� De % DESGri�3e ,�Y : - - sail hydrology , Ft,.. Changed t over roots clearing a pavemen ain� Des w - i ;. t " r . k4isiarN of failures changer Site aliov+ CompacC ❑SnowC] Heald � :. s = f� r o Necrotic -Gradeled❑ Sh �:E_' _.;= .o"- es None ice Site thong °n m 5atura each Strong winds❑ cis oa Chlorotic r.— it corrdions Limited volume �rnan w egl[�rdiorrrral --/ dead} ❑ Saevaittngwinddirection_.� L4r i{ t NoneL3r� Pr ''. �,� _ done LSeasonal attC La[ged -_�.�.5� ljigil ❑ X zr r� F MediurrtCl Normal DesGrtbe Small L7 gaY Law 1] 34 a crown Size Branches❑ Trunk Rants❑ 3-, Re stsli3iotic ntiisttetoQjMoss❑ '� geeGtesfaiturePrgfrte t�Yy eiingd Dense❑ _ a� . • Windfunn Normair �� �� Full Fewi7 tx tf'r`� al❑ cheS r -'"sMt 4=- �;Partt teriaY gran _ f t f�ny.- e Protect tom WindexPasur lyarma' DenseCl uN�coT: $ arse❑ si arnage ❑ Crown density p change in toad factor r, zas� 4�� ex ectied $reet3'e �.�Yri��� included hark❑ Yet ae P� -�= ��Ce� •1`i^'! • 8M1l• aT= ? 'ti r K# 3 Ci,&s ❑ e5tho4e%C4CC. u N , __ h_ inapt o Cavity] Codam £ LCR r� Max. dia" __— Weak a chments ❑ Simiiaf brn asnage f de ayp red crown © a� overal Max. dia. �—� r ores ©�� inroad Unbaian �— previousb GailslBurls❑ Sap Dead bn�igs]branChesf4umber �r—f ark❑ Cankers] Range Missingb Heartwood decay b grolcen] ❑ ded branGhes ❑ Conks Q Ovenen e Raised h pruning histpry Thinned r Lion~t Response growl Crown cleaned 0 Tapped tern once W----r� other condition(s) of con Fart Dist Reduced ❑ ❑ ModerateO Sigrlificari Flush cuts part Size �y/A© Minor tmminerr defect possible Q Probable ❑ food ©n tture lmFrobablei� Val Distance Sig" Root lskelihaadOffagy®� �o���tC Minor ❑, ModeramM ,art Size Ti/AO Probable i� imn'inent © Roots and Stem girdlit ,probable possible❑ Depth__��J Load failure ,p otvis'lb" De CanksjMushroar etihaad °f bur'sedl� Decay r 9 barkte�ure/cojar ❑ Dead © cavity ❑ AbnormalCracks barlc included Ooze ❑ amagedraotsQ Distance from trunk .� Dead/Missing Sap ooze V` Cut/D Soil weakr Codominant stems ❑ Cankers]Galls/Burls ❑ ushraoms ❑ Cracks Cl s M Root piate lifting ❑ Sapwood damage/deco,Ieartwood decaY9• Cank / Poor.taper © th damage[ Depth �__ — Response grow Lightning % circ• of concern CavitViNesthole_� Condition(s} Fail Distance ---�- Corrected? Si Lean, part size Minor ❑ Moderate❑ g Respan5e growth �� N/Al7 probable © Im s of concer Load an defect Tobabie❑ possible ❑ Condition () Fail Distance of failure imF © i�oderateC] Signih tattelihocd part Size Minor © lmtninent 13 /A❑ ibie❑ probable Load on defer robabieL7 Pons .:,..,,ti,nodofiailure IrMp -r c � E - - - - - Likelihood Failure ill impact Consequences Failure Impact (fromMatr1x13 Risk m +' m v o E rating �' •h4 C_ ? (franc W Matrlx2) WintYIY I I iL-4-hhnM rngttix. ;pS�lii�l�:, ar&"�y'!+ '2s.y� '!`E, LPL '�•Y. VI' f 3 +C--'. .F �.h 'V a. 2. I North Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk 4. overall tree risk rating Low © ModerateK High ❑ Extreme ❑ overall residual risk None ❑ Low ❑ Moderate© High© Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval Data © Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ©No Dyes-Type/Reason Inspection limitations done llVisibility ❑Access ©Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe ee �� � ss 2GOC. o Time of —57 t 2 �� . o Sheet ��� r pate F� Tree Ao. Craven spread din '44" G Height _! — l Time frarr►e +; r T 1,.1y� R7 ra r Clierit -fools used 4 Tree lOcati4n k;. r .. f ;N.�. e"Oneoccupancyd c Address J ; r Targ ra r s ��`��' :.Fl F. n rate .Or Tree species r c-tare 5 occasional w „ e554rlsi a �- , 3 % uxi �3 _ freGuent o w Ass r y r.- 4 Target pr°tectton, �s a _constant ¢ E u Target �escviption r n4 •, Y ,a o- Aspect FlatO Slopefl—'_ fi�►� Topography s st Describe sz ' Q Float Ck1tSCi % De$Crli�e �k 5° ed sa'kl hYdrol4gY over roots ,� _z. �G Chang Vement Describe r� ^�. i,.., SiteclearingQ Compare pa raln� History of failures changed ailov Ice SnowG FieavY =-.. % Necrotic one Grade ted❑ Sh wlndsfl 4 �.__ Saturn C.O. . x Chlorotic Site changes N voiume� Breather strong d � s°/p ditions Limited Co.nm°n tt09k1i4_�lt dead�Q Normal Soil con d direction f— s one wln s T seaSOnai lotiG prevailing ,., = e {None Ah w � Mediums targeC LO s Drmalt� rikghQ ODt$p SCCibe a Small! a N De a crown size Vigor �t R Y£tFcot ,` �elativ etoe}Moss pest JBMotic $rancheSQ TTLknK�` _ x �- , : © Vines��rStl le Norma Dense F Species failure prop wY :, Wind funnelingd Q 3 ri ,4. it Few Y ,... r r dL partial❑ F ranches Protecte Dense© lnteriar$ Fiad�#tic.,.In exposuret{orma tsli�t g damagE ❑ parseQ ,a� s r o Li htni s ar►� 5„ Crown density change in load `'sTf che5 aye included bark cent or expel: axG lxr� ._.ci. bWn and B %circ lte Cracks Ia CavitYlNesthole l ... - ter, Codorninant L3 rats Sirnliar branches present f LCR ,i Max. dia. �r weak arch nch fait -��� sapwood damage]decaY craven 1] , J/. aver Max, dia. Ca4lsl�urls Unbalanced nchesQ Deviausbngbark� Cankers] Dead t`Nigsibra Number �r De Heariwoad decay wokenJNangers ches © Conks fl Over -extended bran Raised nse growth history Thinned 17 Llon-t Resit pruning lopped © cern Crown cleaned 2 s of can Fall D'sstanGe Other condition 0 Moderate❑ Signdic, Reduced part Sixe Minor cuts NIAD Probable ❑ lmmini FlushPossible toad on defect failure ,probable❑ istance sign Rpo1 Co llt''� Fall D hkelihoad Minor ❑. Moderate lmkrkinent 0 P'00't! 2ln Stern girt partS'ixe N]A❑ ible❑ Probable Depth -- to d elect robabteil ,tvis'sbleW Conksf Mushrc Poss ilure ITr'� Collar buriedJN Lilo RhpOd of jcolor fl Decay ❑ Cavity C1 -- ��r00k Dead Abnormal bark texturecracks ids Cso�e fl edrootsQ Distanceframtrunk. ►sing bark � Included bark fl Sap ooze` Cut JDarnag Soi! wez DeadJM GallsJBurls ❑ Cracks 0 Codominanistems p Cankers) ConksJMushroomsp gootplatelRftingQ Sapwood damage/ deca�p�ood decay taper ❑ poor tap onye growth a efl Depth �r Resp tningdam g Dep concern Llgh % circ. condition �s� of 'on hale _r Fall Distance Corrected? Size © Moderately Leaner part NIA Minor Response grow road on defect Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Conditions) Of concern Fall Distance e❑ nficant❑ Likeliiioodoffailure irrlprobab4el� - � e Sig Moderae part Sit M'tnor fl ❑ IMM.Writ ❑ N]A❑ possibieil Probable Load on �{ of failure lmprObableR Likellh Target (target number orde,"V'an) M� 1. Likelih Consequences ikelihond failur a & Impact r 7-r [ - impact matrix sorr Ma t€ -; Failure = � z 'own y Gonditianlsl concern = C m m N } 7 04 H o 7 j Tree part m 0. AB:.— 3is Rislc rating I� a ons wlitigaiion'n e 1 Risk rating (frame matrix 2) 2• eetion interval ____.r✓---• 3. tL �ligb ❑ Extreme p Recommended insp lava ❑ Moderate Fxtreme Q 4. µigh ❑ �,w 1] Moderate [3 ©�,Qs-_ pe/peason over tree risk rating None Q t needed INN° escribe Vines [�itaot collar buried i] overall residual risk Advanced assessrr►en inaN �Finai ©Prelim pAccess ❑ Data None dVisibility inspection lirnitam Client Address/Tree -free species , Assessor(s) — c r �u m r is Tree Risk Assessrn� it Form MI Qjd,� _Z9 Time ! 007 pate Sheet �i.w44n Tree no. _J_j - - ' r Crown spread dia.--- dbh height----- Time frame d . d 4 -3. �f Tools used : _ �;-x��-t .;-' s ._.'. : x r.. qTargee;t ancv °t Occfate $ n°�rs n� a1�-rare � .�X z-occasional yTarget protectionu+ 3-frequentTarget description �" a -constant p h F1afQ SlopeO �_--- Aspect To ograp y liistary of failures Changed soil hydroiogy© Root cuts Describe � %Describe es Mane❑ Grade change❑ Site clearing© actedlp Site thong Pavement over roots ll� Describe . Saturated❑ Shaliowl Cvmp iceCi av rain❑ r wtnds'B► snow❑ He Y Soil conditions Limited valUm Bather Strong `f j. _t$- s; wind direction Common w vtl�f:. F . r.t =.r. �' /n Necrotic larevailing o -- ` r .�, ` `' �. x.u� - ,rz nt..�mal % GhtOratiC seasonal)V >' -� poliage None Normal Nigh ❑ Vigor Law ❑ ! V -� �.r w h2a , Hied fi Pests/Biotic Trunll Roots© Describe - L g ❑ Species failure profile Branches❑ � �_�. ,z - ."` ow ium :.'t r ❑ ar e Relative cr FU Interior branches Few© Normal Dense❑ Vines/Mistlatoe]Mass❑ Wind exposure Protected❑ Partial Den Wind Tor br nc Nrrma r F y 3< Crown density Sparse❑ r s' c#edchange in load factors y ti3r 7ryf '� 4' fir {E. �.: f:.;z Recentarexpe:. SF_4.rY�-:I�i�nCt$`XI;C�F;r .rS�c.. ti . LCR _ 0% Unbalanced crown © %overall Dead twigs/branches Cl Broken/Hangers Number Over -extended branches Pruning hlstory Thinned ❑ Crown cleaned 0 Topped 0 Reduced © other --- Flush cuts 13 Crown and Branches Lightning damage Cracks 0 included bark ❑ Max. dia. ______ Codominant`% Cavity/Nest hole,__ */- dre. Max. dia. ______- Weak attachmentsu Similar branches present Cl Previous branch failuresV AAK Dead/Missing bark❑ Cankers/Galls/B rls ❑ Sapwood damage/decayl]� Raised ❑ Conks 0 Heartwood decay Lion -tailed 0 Response growth C..nndibon (s) of Concern Fall Distance Part Size Minor E3 ModerateVl Significant❑ Load on defect N/A Probable imminent 0 likelihood of failure ImprobableO possible Trunk -- Abnormal bark cracks ❑ Dead/Missing bark Cracks ❑ included barkA Sap ooze ❑ Codominant stems Cankers/Gaits/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decaySa Heartwood decay9 Conks/Mushrooms Lightning damage❑ Depth Poor taper 13 Cavity/Nest hole ��% circ. p Lean _r Corrected? Response growth c Conditlon(s) of concern Fall Distance ------- part Size Significant 0 N/A Minor © Moderate'>i� Load on defect Probable 0 imminent Likelihood Offallure ImprobableCl possible Fall Distance --- part Size Minor © Moderate Significant© Load on defect N/A ❑ Like13 lihoodoffailure '-pro bable© Possible Probable 0 imminent — Roots and Root Collar -- Depth____� Stem girdling Collar buried/Not visible © Conks/Mushrooms 13 Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Cavity % circ• ❑ ,�� Doze ❑ 13 Distance from trunk �,�_ Cracks 17 Gut/Damaged roots Soft weakness Root plate lifting ❑ Response growth Conditions) of concern Fail Distance-----~�� Part Size N/A ❑ Minor © Moderate❑ Significant 0 Load on defect imminent 13 i tikelihoodoffallure Improbable❑ Possible© Probable 1p Matrix f - Likelihood matrix. _]4#p y i .. ��� _. �t� p .1 4S 1l S 4E i"1�%�iipilt,�i'� tYCQi ��,la'►��.�I � � y � E� �iY 4 _ 2� Y��+ilt��i� �� l,!`-10. l E prZr sa .2.2,Urali AA dA I D-1,—ti--f-rix Notes, explanations, descriptions options I 2. 3. 4. a North Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk. Overall tree risk rating tow 0 Moderat4 High 0 Extreme 0 Overall residual risk None ❑ tow 0 Moderate 0 High 0 Extreme 0 Recommended inspection interval Data 0 Final 0 Preliminary Advanced assessment needed [:]No E3Yes-Type/Reason inspection limitations None ©Visibility ©Access ©Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe Basvc Tree Risk Assessme, it Form 41 Client C_ .1 el! S 1 Address/Tree location Tree species Assessor(s) P Time ca S Sheet j— of .- Crown spread dia, i 12y Tune frame A Y= ry�fy ' Topography Flatjff Slope History of failures Site changes None❑ Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology[]Rootcuts Describe soil conditions Limited volumes, Saturated ❑ Shallov4q Compactecilk Pavement over rootsV i C - Describe Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong windsvIlce❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain❑ Describe Vigor Law ❑ Normal High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal)jdl Apia dead)❑ Normal _% Chlorotic % Necroti ° Pests/Biotic Species failure profile Branches �ii Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe r V0-9 4s r , IN Windexpasure Protected❑ Partial© Full Relative crown size smal� Medium large Wind funneling[] Crowrrdensiiy Spars! Normal[]Dense❑ Interior by Few[] Normal❑ Dense❑ Mnes/Mistletoe/Mass❑ Recent or expected change in load factors �F r } ' ..,...s- .�_.si _ _..:.._. . t_ - -i r: ,:,rr,L T ��v �' �_4 rr�_�::..6.�sY►�aci�-rifQ••��A�li<i?II�Tflrtil2::flk ���{��}�__4y:_-_ s �.,,.ti_ .�._ ..1ns t�«.. ,ti 't ram".. — Crown and Branches — Cracks ❑ Lightning damage El Unbalanced crown Dead twigs/branchesU LCR % S�C % overall Max. dia. Codominant Included bark ❑ Broken/Hangers Number Max. dia. weak attachments ❑ CavityJNesthole /o 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 El Topped El 13 Response growth Response Flush cuts F Other Condition (s) of concern part Size N/A ❑ FalI Distance _ Minor ❑. Moderate ❑ Significant% part Size Load on defect N/A Fall Distance Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant ❑ Load on defect` Likelihood ofWlur+e Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable ❑ Imminent 4 Ukelihoodofffailure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable Imminent — Trunlc — Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Codominant stems ❑ included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ lightning damage[] Heartwood decay[] Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Lean ' Corrected? Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate[] Significant ❑ Likelihood of failure improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable Cl Imminent ❑ — Roots and Root Collar Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth stem girdling ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms 11 ooze ❑ Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Root plate lifting ❑ Response growth Condition (s) of concern Part Size Cavity ❑ % circ. Distance from trunk Soil weakness ❑ Fall Distance Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant❑ Likelihoodoffailure Improbable El Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ ''fx _3 S ,,# 3 s V::r, e} _x _ Likelihood Consequences Falluse & impact Failure Impact Target condition(s) {fram Matrix )) (Target number Tree part n + Z. v c Risk ordescription) of concern E s °>-' rating o m c Z A a {front 7 0 2 _ y in Ln Matrlx2) 20 Tit Y) . S ; - } F �a 3J 1 ir' 3 f f _ 4'G L'. i 1 NONWON _ jY gg 7~ {- r t ....yam - ; Matrix !. Likelihood matrix. `t13S7 �T •`'4"��. }'"-Fs :i{' yam' 1[C7 1-10 W. 1751�}l 11CL r. L a13iy:. o�ke�1'Atiiy .�i Mntrir7 Risle rating matroc ��' a i�' Y � 13 i �•lFii ,H Y -, gi s fi Y�1?tGu1#%14;._..3n �3L Yr`oeri E ftCo,erae t: 2. 3. 4. Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High 11k, Extreme ❑ Overall residual risk None ❑ Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Residual risk Recommended inspection interval Data ❑Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes Type/Reason inspection limitationgNone ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe P W WA01FAM City of Ashland Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Telephone: 541-488-5305 Inspection Line: 541-552-2080 Plan Type: Administrative Planning Action Applicant: PERMIT NUMBER PA-A-2020-00143 pply Date: 12/22/2020 Date: Total Pees;; $361.25 0 "1 WL ff VAM City of Ashland Community Development Department 51 Winburn Way Ashland, 4R 97520 Telephone: 541-488-5305 Inspection Line: 541-552-2080 Plan Type: Administrative Planning Action Applicant: PERMIT NUMBER PA-A-2020-00143 pply Date: 12/22/2020 Date: Iota! fees $3C1.25