Loading...
284 Belvedere Street Arborist letterCity of M-Wiefic tkmdi Crrrrr�rait�r eluprt�att �� tW SemiraoW Riad Ada nuc Via, Ft . 32233 M904 -247-91W [� +�+ttrrrt�t+�ia�attkt► QASSIRCAW)N ti PERM # i TI -Plisse ,keWr an inventory in the area below or attar a site pian showing A existing uws on the pmpffW beknv that are 8dkmn4m at brawl heist (dbh) arrd _ Pkiam. 4mcnpk4n the fakrmrKp a Show the kutim cif;dl trr_vs to tw. mouved with an -r o Sfmw Owe man of A trees to be prese wd with i 3� 0 show ihe k a im of all trr m to he ria wmh an mac' O SPrrW A eXtgttc ar-44xr PrOPOIRd IbAdhp o mimbwa umarrrflfstarrFXHWff[i.TmewtxAd*A PWP IW- beiveaere Street lb yara5 SCAIt t SWAM xixz. I- .5 ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client GUSR AD F AS Date ' 1$ - 1z) Time 0100 Address/Tree location 7184 ULukD T - Filo, T lkuw4T Tree no. X t jX,1 Sheet _I of _3�_ Tree species PINUS o- dbh :9` G.').° Height '7b' Crown spread dia. Assessor(s), TALLo4 ?RAM n W, N E747 Z A Time frame I - 3 YEAas Tools used_ 6A, -^RR - Ket5e Taroet Assessment terse rags History of failures S — - - - Topography FlatJ3 Slopef % Aspect Site changes NoneEr Grade change Site clearing Changed sail hydrology Root cuts [I Describe Soilcondidons Limitedvolume❑ SaturatedQ Shallow[] CompactedO Pavementoverroots❑ % Describe FLOZ014 6a,-. Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds1l ice ❑ Snow❑ Heavy rain 0 Describe_ - Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ Normal 0- High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) Q None (dead)O Normal % Chlorotic —% Necrotic % Pests .,i ! A _ Abiotic MIA Species failure profile Branches[3 TrunkEl Rootsl[3 Describe RycTS i.renwL - Pogo j av,j; FALLw 6 D Lic- i., co eti. Bad Load Factors Windexposure Protected❑ PartiaiJ2 Full❑ Wind€unneling❑ Relative crown size Small[] Medium❑ Largai4 Crown density Sparse❑ Normal`, DenseO Interior tranches Few)K Normal O Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss El Recent or planned change in load factors . aLn ti GEU Wcl['yi T 4ev S L f_ I gAra _.rte LC -AD Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure r Unbalanced crown.9 LCR _Ift_% Dead tWigsAxanches s c�vveraii iv{a7c, die. Broken/Hangers Number Max dia. fiver -extended branches Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned .0 Raised ❑ Reduced t q Topped 0 Cion -tailed 0 Flush cuss ❑ 01ber — Crown and Branches -- Cracks ❑ N . Codominant fl Weak attachments D Previous branch failures Q ice; rri_ Dead/Missing baric ❑ Cankers/GaNs/Hurts L7 Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Response growrn Lightning damage D - Included bark 0 Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Similar branches present ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ i Main concerns) Load on defect N/A 0 Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significants Likelihood of failure Improbable © Possible i3 Probable X Imminent 0 - —Trunk Dead/Missing bark 0 Abnorrnal bark texture/color ❑ Codominant stems 14 included bark 0 Cracks 0 Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sap ooze Lightning damage Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms ❑ CavitylNest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Lean 15- Corrected? Response growth 'U Main concem(s) DKLOU aT $ask Dk-si- Ce k b (l•5le - Load on defect N/A L7 Minor ❑ Moderate 13 SignilicantJO Likelihood of failure ImprobableO Possible ❑ Probable)§ Imminent ❑ — Roots arid- Root Collar — Collar buried/Not visible 0 Depth Stem girdling ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms 13 Daze ❑ Cavity ❑ %circ. Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Root plate lifting,#' Soil weakness. ❑ Response growth Mainconcem(s) U'toM r} o Z2 E4 ILUIZ ke Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor l] Moderate ❑ Significant$ ir7celihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible C3 Probable`G imminent ❑ Page I of 2 Target zone i/y L occupancy M c �'rxl •gi l rI'sate Z c Target description ,? x 2 - orx35 tial tCR �+ M v +� a '•� 3 -frequent d - Coniian[ a a XL 4{OMEwtit��X ><L><1\l :V 2 HouS� H ='1 3 4 terse rags History of failures S — - - - Topography FlatJ3 Slopef % Aspect Site changes NoneEr Grade change Site clearing Changed sail hydrology Root cuts [I Describe Soilcondidons Limitedvolume❑ SaturatedQ Shallow[] CompactedO Pavementoverroots❑ % Describe FLOZ014 6a,-. Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds1l ice ❑ Snow❑ Heavy rain 0 Describe_ - Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ Normal 0- High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) Q None (dead)O Normal % Chlorotic —% Necrotic % Pests .,i ! A _ Abiotic MIA Species failure profile Branches[3 TrunkEl Rootsl[3 Describe RycTS i.renwL - Pogo j av,j; FALLw 6 D Lic- i., co eti. Bad Load Factors Windexposure Protected❑ PartiaiJ2 Full❑ Wind€unneling❑ Relative crown size Small[] Medium❑ Largai4 Crown density Sparse❑ Normal`, DenseO Interior tranches Few)K Normal O Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss El Recent or planned change in load factors . aLn ti GEU Wcl['yi T 4ev S L f_ I gAra _.rte LC -AD Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure r Unbalanced crown.9 LCR _Ift_% Dead tWigsAxanches s c�vveraii iv{a7c, die. Broken/Hangers Number Max dia. fiver -extended branches Pruning history Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned .0 Raised ❑ Reduced t q Topped 0 Cion -tailed 0 Flush cuss ❑ 01ber — Crown and Branches -- Cracks ❑ N . Codominant fl Weak attachments D Previous branch failures Q ice; rri_ Dead/Missing baric ❑ Cankers/GaNs/Hurts L7 Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Response growrn Lightning damage D - Included bark 0 Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Similar branches present ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ i Main concerns) Load on defect N/A 0 Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significants Likelihood of failure Improbable © Possible i3 Probable X Imminent 0 - —Trunk Dead/Missing bark 0 Abnorrnal bark texture/color ❑ Codominant stems 14 included bark 0 Cracks 0 Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sap ooze Lightning damage Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms ❑ CavitylNest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Lean 15- Corrected? Response growth 'U Main concem(s) DKLOU aT $ask Dk-si- Ce k b (l•5le - Load on defect N/A L7 Minor ❑ Moderate 13 SignilicantJO Likelihood of failure ImprobableO Possible ❑ Probable)§ Imminent ❑ — Roots arid- Root Collar — Collar buried/Not visible 0 Depth Stem girdling ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms 13 Daze ❑ Cavity ❑ %circ. Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Root plate lifting,#' Soil weakness. ❑ Response growth Mainconcem(s) U'toM r} o Z2 E4 ILUIZ ke Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor l] Moderate ❑ Significant$ ir7celihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible C3 Probable`G imminent ❑ Page I of 2 c 0 F B c 8 Tree part At6K i 1 I Tau MK XL Conditions of concern FAIU4 G a,,- do .4do Vorn Uulblti Risk Categorization EZD4t FAIwK@ DUE 7d' n10 z FLATS tO 10?P ?6k Pl�iwG 3 4 Matrix/. Likelihood matrix. xi32 a,-3 Very low a El Imminent N .y +° N _ Y Very likely t Unlikely Unlikely Target li LL Unlikely protection 73 7d` ( )uo Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Low EZD4t FAIwK@ DUE 7d' n10 z FLATS tO 10?P ?6k Pl�iwG 3 4 Matrix/. Likelihood matrix. xi32 a,-3 Likelihood of Failure Very low Likelihood of impacting Target Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely. Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Low 0 DEMON 0 0110001 MIMMUMMEMEEMEMMIMMI MMMMMMMIMMMM MIMMUMMENIMEMMEMISMI ■iiiriiiii■imommi Sol Likelihood of Failure Very low Likelihood of impacting Target Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely. Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely MatrixZ Risk ratirm matrix. Likelihood of Failure & impact Negligible Consequences of Failure Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely I Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate I Moderate. Unlikely Low Low Low Low Notes, explanations, descriptions 'file UN- Ajo wbnlc®rt,Eg Qaois flee DOE -co u, tFve- WX6E& T Risk rating of part (from Matrix 2) �)1&q W !;l R1 NCtT4 Mitigation options i, . V,6Ntov L Residual risk d */a 2: "Al PEE-Wfa d- PLA"r 96AL1,4 CAeC P 462A rnResidual risk tJb 0 Residual risk - - Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low E3 Moderate O HighU Extreme O Work priority 1V, 20 30 4 Overall residual risk Low El Moderate O High ❑ Extreme O Recommended inspection interval € `. Data ijFinal © Preliminary Advanced assessment needed Mo OYes-Type/Reason N f4 T Inspection limitations SNone ®Visibility OAccess OViines ORoot collar buried Describe Nll This dawhect was prodwed by the International Stxiely of ArNoritullurr (TSA) and is intended Cor use hyTree Risk Asscssment Qualificd (TRAQ) arborisls — 2013 Page 2 of 2 Co Dominant Stems growing together at base. Raised root plate on right side where lager lead is located Over extended branches over home and powerlines Over extended branches on right lead contributing to severe lean X4 -X;. 3 -- No interior branches to reduce length of large branches back to Due to the uneven crown balance, the overextended multiple large branches, the co dom union at the base of the tree, and the root plate starting to lift I recommend removal of pine tree X1X2 from the property- X2 is the weaker lead so beeping that lead would not be beneficial and X1 since its root structure appears comprised should be removed before failure occurs x3 -t-3 ISABasic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client C.o N2A D 0!5H61 Date _ _ �a i 3 Time Ci ?a6 Address/Tree location 514 BC--L.VGo 5 LL—PT Tree no. X Sheet J of 3 Tree species _ VWUu CLLOT i 1 dbh_ - .f& G ' Height "W -' Crown spread dia. — ' Assessor(s) _ Tisa IRAmrA&LL 0E'7q??A Time frame I- 3 lc-Ar25 Toots used eAOhRA - P1to Target Assessment . Site.facters History of failures N IP Topography Flat[l Slope© % Aspect Site changes None O Grade change O Site clearing [l Changed soil hydrologyO Root cuts O Describe - Soil conditions Limited volume© Saturated l$ Shallow ❑ Compacted13 Pavement over roots E3 % Describe f -c- V -D to Prevailing wind direction 5t+ Common weather Strong winds 13 ice O Snow 0 Heavy rainJ3 Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low© Normal J4 High £3 Foliage None (seasonal) Lel None (dead) ❑ Normal 90 % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests— - --Nit_ Abicdc I Species failure profile BranchesO Trunk Roots[9 Describe, SO 442.E l-1 M MIC -Ft - fL(-PC?VILES t P-0 FW -e 14CT Wind exposure Protected 0 Partial CJ Full % Wind funneling£] Relative crown size Small[3 Medium O Large Crowndensity SparseO NormatO Denseg Interior branches FewE3 NormaK3 Denselz Vines/Mistletoe/Mosslg VIA,(FS _ tawE2 riA[� Recent or planned change in load factors _ _ --- Tree Defects and Con=ditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Crown and Branches — FU-bal,anced crown P' LCR qD % Cracks 0 Lightning damage 09 s/Fir inches l3 overall Max u a. Codominant loo a T2o"v1C included baric l9ngers Number Max. dia. Weak attachments 0 Cavity/Nest hole %circ. over-extended branches Pruning history Previous branch failures D Similar branches present Crown cleaned Cl Thinned Q Raised p Dead/Missing bark D Cankers/Galls/burls n Sapwood damage/decay it Reduced 0 Topped 13 Lion tailed © Conks D Heartwood decay Q Flush cuts 0 Other Response growth Mainconcem(s) ?,U._ � i '�i_i tS t)4tXLAnrL&Q t.J LA"F„Ir-1 WElt,i-t ES e&) _5n��T-i SrOC Load on defect N/A Q Minor © Moderate 0 Significant E3 likelihood of failure Improbable 0 Possible L7 Probable D Imminent Q —Trunk— - Roots and Roca Collar — Dead/Missing bark 0 Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible 0 Depth Stem girdling 0 Codominant stems 0 Included bark 0 Cracks ❑ Dead D Decay 0 Conks/Mushrooms D Sapwood damage/decay O Cankers/Galls/Burls© Sap ooze Ooze 0 Cavity 0 %circ. Lightning damage O Heartwood decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms Q Cracks O Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper Lean i5 ” Corrected? NO Roc2tplate lasting Soil weakness Response growth N A Response growth - Main concern(s)-MIO-.o NIV-1v RESo r� t�U ,Jtc Main concem(s) - R001 I tAIE S k r w'O r G, l6 ti15 e J !-Kohn, w6i Grl T 4 W -JO F-lCPv50i-a LjtF . Load on defect N/A © Minor ❑ Moderate 13 Significant W Load on d N/A O Minor[3 Moderate Cl Significantjff LOcelihood offaiilure Likelihood offaffure improbabieCi Possible fl ProbableQ Imminent 13 improbable!:! Possible Q Probable Imminent Page I of 2 Target zone r m >7ccupancy £ $ a c 2 1 T rate « a c 1 -rare is cc i m +- = Targetdescripbon c x ul 2 -occasional U ar i U } 3 -frequent u Ni 4-constwu VCLL C K rL Hnm6oVUA, 3 �o too �JVr Nd' 3 4 . Site.facters History of failures N IP Topography Flat[l Slope© % Aspect Site changes None O Grade change O Site clearing [l Changed soil hydrologyO Root cuts O Describe - Soil conditions Limited volume© Saturated l$ Shallow ❑ Compacted13 Pavement over roots E3 % Describe f -c- V -D to Prevailing wind direction 5t+ Common weather Strong winds 13 ice O Snow 0 Heavy rainJ3 Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low© Normal J4 High £3 Foliage None (seasonal) Lel None (dead) ❑ Normal 90 % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests— - --Nit_ Abicdc I Species failure profile BranchesO Trunk Roots[9 Describe, SO 442.E l-1 M MIC -Ft - fL(-PC?VILES t P-0 FW -e 14CT Wind exposure Protected 0 Partial CJ Full % Wind funneling£] Relative crown size Small[3 Medium O Large Crowndensity SparseO NormatO Denseg Interior branches FewE3 NormaK3 Denselz Vines/Mistletoe/Mosslg VIA,(FS _ tawE2 riA[� Recent or planned change in load factors _ _ --- Tree Defects and Con=ditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Crown and Branches — FU-bal,anced crown P' LCR qD % Cracks 0 Lightning damage 09 s/Fir inches l3 overall Max u a. Codominant loo a T2o"v1C included baric l9ngers Number Max. dia. Weak attachments 0 Cavity/Nest hole %circ. over-extended branches Pruning history Previous branch failures D Similar branches present Crown cleaned Cl Thinned Q Raised p Dead/Missing bark D Cankers/Galls/burls n Sapwood damage/decay it Reduced 0 Topped 13 Lion tailed © Conks D Heartwood decay Q Flush cuts 0 Other Response growth Mainconcem(s) ?,U._ � i '�i_i tS t)4tXLAnrL&Q t.J LA"F„Ir-1 WElt,i-t ES e&) _5n��T-i SrOC Load on defect N/A Q Minor © Moderate 0 Significant E3 likelihood of failure Improbable 0 Possible L7 Probable D Imminent Q —Trunk— - Roots and Roca Collar — Dead/Missing bark 0 Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible 0 Depth Stem girdling 0 Codominant stems 0 Included bark 0 Cracks ❑ Dead D Decay 0 Conks/Mushrooms D Sapwood damage/decay O Cankers/Galls/Burls© Sap ooze Ooze 0 Cavity 0 %circ. Lightning damage O Heartwood decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms Q Cracks O Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper Lean i5 ” Corrected? NO Roc2tplate lasting Soil weakness Response growth N A Response growth - Main concern(s)-MIO-.o NIV-1v RESo r� t�U ,Jtc Main concem(s) - R001 I tAIE S k r w'O r G, l6 ti15 e J !-Kohn, w6i Grl T 4 W -JO F-lCPv50i-a LjtF . Load on defect N/A © Minor ❑ Moderate 13 Significant W Load on d N/A O Minor[3 Moderate Cl Significantjff LOcelihood offaiilure Likelihood offaffure improbabieCi Possible fl ProbableQ Imminent 13 improbable!:! Possible Q Probable Imminent Page I of 2 1 Risk Categorization � Negftble likelihood of Impacting Target Severe of Failure - -- — -- t3'ke1111ood High ----- ---- m s Somewhat likely Likely : Very likely Probable v M unlikely Consequences Likely Failure Impact Failure & impact Unlikely Somewhat Likely Improbatble Unlikely Unli I u C Unlikely l from Matrix ll task m m = .rRc ?� c Q 7. H 3 rating Conditions '� ~ L Ta�Det •a E Q a p is i a a £ Z. m °c j e of part Q u Tree part of concern r6 a ri protection a a £ — > 3 ° _ = o vn v " :+ Z =° w j m an jlfnm aviatrix 2l TtvAl 5AP 007-d3 ' �am 10' 170- i v? [iter} 1 ter w K6410 -10'. 7." aL -Va t -1(G4 ?ian1L� r` ROpTS ht70? QI.P., �F loJ 4 r y 2 �RIi-+,s12Lr �*►," �'•,` 2 Ari 3� 4 Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. il"irelihood Negftble likelihood of Impacting Target Severe of Failure Very low LowMedium High High imminent Unlikely, Somewhat likely Likely : Very likely Probable Unlikely unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat Likely Improbatble Unlikely Unli I unlikely Unlikely Motrix2 Risk rating matrix - Likelihood of Failure & Impact Negftble Consequences of Failure Minor Significant Severe Wry likely Low. Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate .. High High Someserhat likely Lout' LOW.. Moderate Moderate tsnllkely Lbw v _ LOW 1 :. . 1014 i Low i Notes, explanations, descriptions W646NT OFuvt�lnpAyceo 490 W IJ . t-�'� Nc, SAP i- m j t e -i to iNot C/" Te rVTUILrc F4 LVaa vF -6.6 Mitigation options iZLM i),.r i L Residual risk Residual risk loo ° G Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating LowL' Moderate O HighV, Extreme[3 Work priority 10 2 0 3 JR 4 O Overall residual risk 1_ow_ ' Moderate O High O Extreme O Recommended inspection interval t rno � Data final iii Preliminary pranced assessment needed ONo OYes-TypejReason I" i r+ -. -- -- - Inspection limitations JjNone OVisibility OAccess Ovines ORoot collar buried Describe _ [1r Jet Tits' dWiWw,•n nay i,nutt1aq bi-tik• intern. ti n.ai til,lielY erArlx,ricaiture (ISA) and is intended li,r use br Tree Risk Asvi<meni Qualified [TRAQi arborists 201 Page 2 of 2 Co Dom Stems located 20' up the trunk. Included bark. Vines encroaching Sap oozing from micro fractures at base of trunk due to wind. No boring insects f detected. No fungal outbreaks Due to the size of the co dom stems, the weight being applied to the included bark, the dense crown catching the wind and micro stress factures on baseof trunk I recommend removal of pine tree X3 . Even with severe corrective pruning the possible damage to the root structure would not be repaired to prevent a future tree failure.D I Site Factors History of failures t�jjR Topography FlatOSlope❑ % Aspect Site changes None Grade change ❑ Site clearing Changed soil hydrology El Root cuts Describe 'A Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ SaturatedM Shallow Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe FW w -OLA Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ Normal Ir High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal --qa % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests- bjjA Abiotic Species failure profile Branches 19 Trunk IN Roots Eir Describe ticE Et6at7 + ttb wo + o07 PL -Tc- L4fT &; — Load Factors Windexposure Protected[] Partial❑ Full Wind funneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium❑ Larged Crown density Sparse Normal Den5eA3 Interior branches Few Normal Dense,14 Vines/Mistietoe/Mossy -!,v 1,jolz tt(,,,t3 Recent or planned change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown I& LCR I o % 4 Cracks ❑N d Lightning damage fl Dead twigs/branches ® %overall Max. dia. (� Codominant El R Broken/Hangers Number � Max. dia. I' • ISA. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Pruning history Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present Client CO u i7 Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ DateWigTime 0 : a 0a Flush cuts ❑ Either Address/Tree location f 6EcvEDizg 5s t _ - t,.6FT Tree no. �` Sheet �_ of Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ SignificantA Tree species P t A,i U5 C cu i O -' dbh ie , Height -iQ` Crown spread dia. 50 ` Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Assessor(s) _T4uz j TP -Am MECL t y9 71411 A Time frame- Tools used 4sM2r� eiR.a ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms CI circ. Target Assessment Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Lean —162 Corrected? NO Target zone Response growth !v R p g Response growth `m -- Main concem(s) RE A -t _ �tvNlc B'4,5.� Occupancy rate n. g Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant 14 i s Target description 3 ,"-i 3= t -rare Q � � x 2 -occasional +Wa +�" v v Page 1 of 2 ED $ t- s 3 - frequent 34 -constant 7 o £ aye a 1 I{esnnr; oSLS ���6xBote 2 house - ��tGFtt3ofL No 3 EEJ I NO 4 i J Site Factors History of failures t�jjR Topography FlatOSlope❑ % Aspect Site changes None Grade change ❑ Site clearing Changed soil hydrology El Root cuts Describe 'A Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ SaturatedM Shallow Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots ❑ % Describe FW w -OLA Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low ❑ Normal Ir High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal --qa % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests- bjjA Abiotic Species failure profile Branches 19 Trunk IN Roots Eir Describe ticE Et6at7 + ttb wo + o07 PL -Tc- L4fT &; — Load Factors Windexposure Protected[] Partial❑ Full Wind funneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium❑ Larged Crown density Sparse Normal Den5eA3 Interior branches Few Normal Dense,14 Vines/Mistietoe/Mossy -!,v 1,jolz tt(,,,t3 Recent or planned change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure — Crown and Branches — Unbalanced crown I& LCR I o % 4 Cracks ❑N d Lightning damage fl Dead twigs/branches ® %overall Max. dia. (� Codominant El R Broken/Hangers Number � Max. dia. I' Included bark ❑ Over-extended branches i& Weak attachments iJ Cavity/Nest Note _% circ. Pruning history Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Reduced ® Topped ❑ Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑ Flush cuts ❑ Either Response growth Mainconcem(s) U qc. H L 60 PKuv, iu 6 Goe,ilL af(M& ca (6n,> a P id &i.E Y46, - Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ SignificantA Likelihood of failure Improbable ❑ Possible ❑ Probable 4 imminent ❑ ---Trunk — — Roots and Root: Collar — Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color ❑ Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth Stem girdling ❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑ Dead ❑ Decay ❑ Conks/Mushrooms ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑ ooze ❑ Cavity ❑ % Lightning damage ❑ Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms CI circ. Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole % circ. Depth Poor taper ❑ Lean —162 Corrected? NO Root plate liftingio Soil weakness ❑ Response growth !v R p g Response growth Main concern(s) L64—; OF It JA &-mmu g (d �—.-- -- Main concem(s) RE A -t _ �tvNlc B'4,5.� Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant 14 Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant 2"( Likelihood of failure Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible ❑ Probable lK Imminent ❑ Improbable❑ Possible ❑ ProbableAg Imminent ❑ Page 1 of 2 Risk Categorization Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. likelihood offallure. Vey Probable. I Un MaWxl. Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Impacting Target LOW Medium . what likely tikeiv Unlikely Unlikeiv . �— likely k - !ry likely Notes, explanations, descriptions Tac Ru#.)k `u#.)L64ov t., i4L & L- i Z-&KE_ t+s L?tet ! .i Ck ea 5 -'-- tea i.71} ,INTO u,J_LL<C-C-"Q ( 2 J2 C, -,.�:U. Consequences l ..1----.--'--j t / oc_n uwBAJ.ArG 4? -r e` Mitigation options (. 0A0vAL. Residual risk O'�e Residual risk -- — Residual risk — - . -- Residual risk Overall tree risk rating taw O Moderate O High IJ Extreme O Work priority 111 2 Z 3 O 4 O Overall residual risk LowU Moderate O High[] Extreme O Recommended inspection interval L nnct.�,J-14 Data Winal O Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ONo Cites-Type/Reason _ Inspection limitations ONone Misibility OAccess ©Vines Moot collar buried Describe 'ri5istltF•t.�ltrctna�l+±'txiu;cd hc-tla•tuft-mationalSeuietrrtfarlxtrScaiturellti�j;utdi.in[rndiKi.nrvse3n•7r.•eRi.3;,1>.c.:m.tntt?ualiticd[TRi(;'tarinxiaU -±t1i3 Nge 2 of 2 manW� 0.■ I■NN�ONE I0 sun no on No t / oc_n uwBAJ.ArG 4? -r e` Mitigation options (. 0A0vAL. Residual risk O'�e Residual risk -- — Residual risk — - . -- Residual risk Overall tree risk rating taw O Moderate O High IJ Extreme O Work priority 111 2 Z 3 O 4 O Overall residual risk LowU Moderate O High[] Extreme O Recommended inspection interval L nnct.�,J-14 Data Winal O Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ONo Cites-Type/Reason _ Inspection limitations ONone Misibility OAccess ©Vines Moot collar buried Describe 'ri5istltF•t.�ltrctna�l+±'txiu;cd hc-tla•tuft-mationalSeuietrrtfarlxtrScaiturellti�j;utdi.in[rndiKi.nrvse3n•7r.•eRi.3;,1>.c.:m.tntt?ualiticd[TRi(;'tarinxiaU -±t1i3 Nge 2 of 2 Root flare above ground indicates that the root system for this pine could be structurally compromised leading to potential future failure Crown density is high. Lots of weight and ability to catch more wind L— -- Pics of U dense canopy and the base of the trunk showing the lean toward the neighbors house Root flare high above ground. Root plate lifting i Dense canopy over neighbors home. _l x -q -q—j Large dense canopy acts as wind sail contributing to lean of tree :1 Due to the lean towards the neighbors house with a majority of the weight on that side I would recommend removal of pine X4. The constant wind and dense canopy is weakening the supporting root structure. Even with severe pruning the damage root system would not be sufficient enough to support the tree during future adverse her conditions 1weat