Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR_Arborist Report 1 Arborist Report April 15, 2025 Prepared For: Paciflc Landscape Management 17801 108th Ave NE 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 Introduction The Davey Tree Expert Company was contracted by Paciflc Landscape Management to perform a Level 2 Tree Risk Assessment on flve (5) pine trees on their clients’ property that have caused signiflcant damage to concrete and parking lot. 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 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 04/10/2025. A Level 2 Assessment was performed which involved 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 occur at standard height, measurement was taken below 4.5 ft. 3 Height: Tree Height is estimated to the nearest <5ft. 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. 4 ● 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. 5 Tree Risk Assessment Tree #1: Pine Pinus sp. DSH Height Avg. Canopy Radius Condition 15” 25’ 20’ Fair Root and Root Collar: History of property damage to tree islands and asphalt. Most islands comprised of smaller maples with little to no damage. These pines are too big for these restrictive locations and will only cause more damage as time wears on. Risk Categorization: The likelihood root failure is Possible with a Medium risk of property damage parked vehicles and the occasional pedestrian. This event is Unlikely, and the consequences of impact are Signiflcant. Overall Tree Risk Rating: LOW 6 Tree Risk Assessment Tree #2: Pine Pinus sp. DSH Height Avg. Canopy Radius Condition 16” 30’ 25’ Fair Root and Root Collar: History of property damage to tree islands and asphalt. Most islands comprised of smaller maples with little to no damage. These pines are too big for these restrictive locations and will only cause more damage as time wears on. Risk Categorization: The likelihood root failure is Possible with a Medium risk of property damage parked vehicles and the occasional pedestrian. This event is Unlikely, and the consequences of impact are Signiflcant. Overall Tree Risk Rating: LOW 7 Tree Risk Assessment Tree #3: Pine Pinus sp. DSH Height Avg. Canopy Radius Condition 15” 25’ 15’ Fair Root and Root Collar: History of property damage to tree islands and asphalt. Most islands comprised of smaller maples with little to no damage. These pines are too big for these restrictive locations and will only cause more damage as time wears on. Risk Categorization: The likelihood root failure is Possible with a Medium risk of property damage parked vehicles and the occasional pedestrian. This event is Unlikely, and the consequences of impact are Signiflcant. Overall Tree Risk Rating: LOW 8 Tree Risk Assessment Tree #4: Pine Pinus sp. DSH Height Avg. Canopy Radius Condition 13” 20’ 20’ Fair Root and Root Collar: History of property damage to tree islands and asphalt. Most islands comprised of smaller maples with little to no damage. These pines are too big for these restrictive locations and will only cause more damage as time wears on. Risk Categorization: The likelihood root failure is Possible with a Medium risk of property damage parked vehicles and the occasional pedestrian. This event is Unlikely, and the consequences of impact are Signiflcant. Overall Tree Risk Rating: LOW 9 Tree Risk Assessment Tree #5: Pine Pinus sp. DSH Height Avg. Canopy Radius Condition 11” 20’ 15’ Fair Root and Root Collar: History of property damage to tree islands and asphalt. Most islands comprised of smaller maples with little to no damage. These pines are too big for these restrictive locations and will only cause more damage as time wears on. Risk Categorization: The likelihood root failure is Possible with a Medium risk of property damage parked vehicles and the occasional pedestrian. This event is Unlikely, and the consequences of impact are Signiflcant. Overall Tree Risk Rating: LOW 10 Analysis and Recommendations • Remove Tree #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 – Trees are not of mature size yet and have caused immense damage to parking lot, asphalt, islands, etc. • Install New Trees for Replacement – There is limited space in these little parking lot islands. Recommendation is to plant a 2” caliper Red Sunset Maple in place of each removal (Acer rubrum 'Franks red’) as there is no room to do more than that.