HomeMy WebLinkAboutBruan
1
Arborist Report
August 6, 2024
Prepared For: Rufo Bruan
1740 S 27th ST
Renton, WA 98055
Prepared By: John Cvikota
The Davey Tree Expert Company
8622 S 222nd St
Kent, WA 9032
ISA Certifled Arborist PN-9483A
Tree Risk Assessment Qualifled Arborist
2
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Methodology 3-5
Limitations 5
Tree Risk Assessment 1 6
Tree Risk Assessment 2 7
Analysis and Recommendations 8
Site Map 9
3
Introduction
The Davey Tree Expert Company was contracted by Rufo Bruan to perform a Level 2
Tree Risk Assessment on two Black Cottonwoods on their rental property that have had
previous branch failure resulting in damage to their tenant’s home and vehicle(s).
The trees were assessed by their location, size, current condition, and overall health.
The data was then used to guide the potential strategies for care. The purpose of this
report is to provide the details of the current condition, health, and recommendations
for maintenance. The flndings in this report can be used to make decisions on whether
the tree may need to be removed or can be retained with restorative pruning and plant
health care.
Methods
Data was collected by an ISA Certifled & TRAQ Arborist (John Cvikota: PN-9483A) on
July 31, 2024. A Level 2 Assessment was performed which involves the following: A 360-
degree walk around, visual evaluation of the tree where the crown, trunk, root fiare,
above ground roots, and site conditions are evaluated with regard to speciflc targets.
This is performed with simple tools such as a sounding mallet, soil probe, clinometer,
etc. No physical inspection of the upper canopy, root crown excavation, resistograph or
other technologies were used in the evaluation of the trees. The following attributes
were collected for each site:
Species: Trees were identifled by genus and species, cultivar if evident, and by common
name.
Diameter at Standard Height (DSH): Trunk diameter was recorded to the nearest inch
at 4.5 feet above grade except where noted for each stem. When limbs or deformities
occurred at standard height, measurement was taken below 4.5 ft.
Height: Tree Height estimated to the nearest <5ft.
4
Avg. Canopy Radius: Average dripline distance was measured.
Condition: Condition ratings were based on but not limited to:(1) the condition and
environment of the tree’s root crown; (2) the condition of the trunk, including decay,
injury, callusing or presence of fungus sporophore; (3) the condition of the limbs,
including strength of crotches, amount of dead wood, hollow areas, and whether there
was excessive weight borne by them; (4) the condition and growth rate history of the
twigs, including pest damage and diseases; (5) the leaf appearance, including
abnormal size and density as well as pest and disease damage. Using an average of
the above factors together with the arborist’s best judgment, the general condition of
the tree was recorded in one of the following categories adapted from the rating system
established by the International Society of Arboriculture and 10th Edition of the Council
of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) Guide for Plant Appraisal:
● Excellent (81%-100%): High vigor and near-perfect health with little or no twig
dieback, discoloration, or defoliation. Nearly ideal and free of structural defects. A
nearly ideal form for the species and is generally symmetrical.
● Good (61%-80%): Vigor is normal for the species and has no signiflcant damage due to
disease or pests. Twig dieback, discoloration, or defoliation is minor. Well-developed
structure with minor defects that can be corrected easily. Minor asymmetries/deviations
from species norm. Function and aesthetics are not compromised.
● Fair (41%-60%): Reduced vigor. Damage due to insects or diseases may be signiflcant
and associated with defoliation but is not likely to be fatal. Twig dieback, defoliation,
discoloration, and/or dead branches may comprise up to 50% of the canopy. A single
structural defect of a signiflcant nature or multiple moderate defects. Structural defects
are not practical to correct or would require multiple treatments over several years.
Major asymmetries/deviations from species norm. Function and aesthetics are
compromised.
5
● Poor (21%-40%): Unhealthy and declining in appearance. Poor vigor and low foliage
density and poor foliage color are present. Potentially fatal pest infestation. Extensive
twig or branch dieback. A single serious structural defect or multiple signiflcant defects.
Observed structural problems cannot be corrected. Failure may occur at any time.
Largely asymmetrical or abnormal form. Form detracts from aesthetics or intended use
to a signiflcant degree.
● Very Poor (6%-20%): Poor vigor and appears to be dying. Little live foliage. Single or
multiple severe structural defects. Visually unappealing and provides little or no
function in the landscape.
● Critical (1-5%) The tree is dying and/or presents an unacceptable risk which
necessitates immediate removal.
● Dead (0%)
Limits of the Assignment
There are many factors that can limit speciflc and accurate data when performing
evaluations of trees, their conditions, and values. The determinations and
recommendations presented here are based on current data and conditions that existed
at the time of the evaluation and cannot be a predictor of the ultimate outcomes for the
trees. A visual inspection was used to develop the flndings, conclusions, and
recommendations found in this report. Values were assigned to grade the attributes of
the trees, including structure and canopy health, and to obtain an overall condition
rating. No physical inspection of the upper canopy, root crown excavation, and
resistograph or other technologies were used in the evaluation of the trees.
6
Tree Risk Assessment
Tree #1: Black Cottonwood Populus Trichocarpa
DSH Height Avg. Canopy Radius Condition
52” 85’ 45’ Good
Crown and Branches: History of branch failure with similar branches in canopy. A decent
amount of deadwood and partially snapped branches.
Roots and Root Collar: Heavy compaction from vehicle traffic and parking. No
noticeable sign of major stress from this.
Risk Categorization: The likelihood of branch failure is Probable with a High risk
of property damage to the home and vehicles parked underneath. This event is
Likely, and the consequences of impact are Significant.
Overall Tree Risk Rating: High
7
Tree Risk Assessment
Tree #2: Black Cottonwood Populus Trichocarpa
DSH Height Avg. Canopy Radius Condition
54” 80’ 40’ Good
Crown and Branches: History of branch failure with similar branches in canopy. A decent
amount of deadwood and partially snapped branches. Trunk has codominant union.
Roots and Root Collar: Heavy compaction from vehicle traffic and parking. No
noticeable sign of major stress from this.
Risk Categorization: The likelihood of branch failure is Probable with a Medium
risk of property damage as this tree is further offset than tree number 1 from
targets. This event is Likely, and the consequences of impact are Significant.
Overall Tree Risk Rating: MODERATE
8
Analysis and Recommendations
1. Remove to 10’ with wildlife snag or prune to reduce risk to Moderate
2. Remove to 10’ with wildlife snag or prune to reduce risk to Low
Tree number 1 has a history of branch failure that has caused damage to the roof and
vehicles parked underneath. Similar branches are present, but the tree has never been
properly pruned or maintained. As this happened long before my arrival, I cannot
advise in one way or another if proper maintenance could have prevented the
aforementioned failure(s). Overall tree health and vigor is good.
Tree number 2 has a history of branch failure but no known history of causing
property damage as far as I’ve been informed. Similar branches are present, but the
tree has never been properly pruned or maintained. Overall tree health and vigor is
good.
As an advocate for my client I am submitting their request for the removal of these
two trees. From the city standpoint in regard to protection of trees of this size, proper
maintenance can significantly reduce, but not completely eliminate risk.
It is my recommendation to take one of two action steps.
1) Prune Trees 1 & 2 for proper structure and eliminate dead, broken and hazard
branches. Reinspect every 2 years.
2) Remove to 10’ and create a wildlife snag.
9
Site Map