The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR_Arborist_Report_250924_v1ARBORIST REPORT Prepared By: Terrence J. Flatley Certified Arborist TRAQ Sep t ember 22, 20 25 WHISPERING PINES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION C/O Daniel Foster, 1813 NE 26 Place, Renton, WA 98056 ARBORIST REPORT Whispering Pines Homeowners Associa3on C/O Dan Foster, President 1813 NE 26 Place, Renton, Washington 98055 Parcel Iden3fica3on Number PID 934760T100 INTRODUCTION The Whispering Pines Homeowners Associa3on is located in the NE Quarter Sec3on 5, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, City of Renton, King County Washington. Geographically, it is in the northern part of Renton and near the Kennydale Neighborhood. There is a cul-de-sac at the east end of Northeast 26 Place where it terminates at a wooded tract of land owned by the HOA. The tract is further iden3fied as parcel 934760T100. The tract is approximately 0.58 acre in size (26,189. square feet). The tract contains a predominantly stand of black co]onwood trees with lesser amounts of red alder and bigleaf maple. The western por3on of the tract consists of rela3vely steep slopes while the eastern half contains wetland-type areas of gentle slopes to level ground. Himalayan blackberry and ivy are the predominant ground covers. In early September of 2025 a large co]onwood tree failed and fell into the NE 26 Place cul-de- sac damaging several vehicles and a fence. From aerial photographs and speaking with the HOA, the tree had a severe lean into the street and sidewalk. The trunk of the tree broke about twelve feet from the ground at a point where the trunk and crown redirected towards the west, the pivot point of failure. The HOA requested a tree assessment of the parcel in order to iden3fy poten3al risks to the street, sidewalk, vehicles, fences, yards, houses and people. METHOD The tract was located on aerial photographs and the approximate boundaries iden3fied on the ground. Each tree was inspected from ground level and data collected about species, size, condi3on, risk ra3ng and more. Trees were iden3fied by risk category and any defects noted. All trees were assigned a unique number and iden3fied on the maps in this report. However, only “Moderate” risk trees with obvious defects had yellow ribbons placed on tree trunks with a number on the ribbon. The “Basic Tree Risk Assessment Forms” were completed for each tree. These forms are used to determine risk ra3ngs for each tree; they can be found at the end of this report. Each tree was sounded using a mallet to determine obvious internal defects. Most trees in the tract sounded solid up to 8 feet on the trunk. An inventory spreadsheet table summarizes the informa3on collected on the “Basic Tree Risk Assessment Forms.” Individual photographs were taken on some of the trees where condi3ons allowed. Whispering Pines HOA Page of 2 8 Map 1. Whispering Pines HOA Neighborhood Loca3on Map Map 2. Preliminary Tree and Tract Loca3on TREE INVENTORY AND RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY TABLE Tree No. Species DBH (In.) Height (Ft.) Crown Spread (Ft.) CondiGon (%) Risk RaGng Treatment Status 1 Black Co]onwood 35 122 69 90 Moderate Prune Retain 2 Black Co*onwood 14 60 18 60 Moderate Remove Remove 3 Bigleaf maple 9 32 27 70 Low Monitor Retain 4 Black Co]onwood 8 26 18 60 Low Monitor Retain 5 Black Co*onwood 21 80 27 60 Moderate Remove Remove 6 Black Co]onwood 29 125 40 90 Low Monitor Retain 7 Black Co*onwood 22 96 42 50 Moderate Remove Remove 8 Black Co]onwood 38 117 40 0 Low Monitor Retain 9 Black Co]onwood 8 49 12 50 Low Monitor Retain 10 Black Co]onwood 27 124 30 60 Low Monitor Retain 11 Black Co]onwood 19 128 60 60 Low Monitor Retain 12 Black Co*onwood 29 112 60 50 Moderate Remove Remove 13 Black Co]onwood 15 80 22 60 Low Monitor Retain 14 Black Co*onwood 28 112 47 50 Moderate Remove Remove 15 Red Alder 15 50 25 80 Low Monitor Retain 16 Red Alder 12 50 20 80 Low Monitor Retain 17 Red Alder 14 50 21 80 Low Monitor Retain 18 Red Alder 16 50 21 80 Low Monitor Retain 19 Red Alder 13 50 21 80 Low Monitor Retain 20 Red Alder 15 50 21 50 Low Monitor Retain 21 Red Alder 12 50 21 90 Low Monitor Retain 22 Red Alder 10 50 21 90 Low Monitor Retain 23 Bigleaf Maple 12 50 54 60 Low Monitor Retain 24 Bigleaf Maple 10 50 54 50 Low Monitor Retain 25 Bigleaf Maple 12 50 54 50 Low Monitor Retain 26 Bigleaf Maple 13 50 54 70 Low Monitor Retain Tree No. Whispering Pines HOA Page of 3 8 DISCUSSION The tract contains the 37 trees shown in the Tree Inventory and Assessment Summary Table. Trees 8 and 20 were the only trees that sounded hollow and decayed; the remaining trees all had solid-sounding lower trunks. Where Status in the table is shown “Remove,” these are co]onwood trees with substan3al lean towards people and property. CONCLUSION Tree Tract: In my professional opinion, the likelihood of Tree Numbers 2, 5, 7, 12, 14, and Tree 33 failing, striking property and people and causing severe injury and damage poses a moderate risk. The information in this report uses a basic level of risk assessment from ground level and considers tree condition under normal weather conditions typical of the 27 Bigleaf Maple 11 50 54 50 Low Monitor Retain 28 Bigleaf Maple 12 50 54 70 Low Monitor Retain 29 Red Alder 21 72 31 90 Low Monitor Retain 30 Red Alder 20 71 33 90 Low Monitor Retain 31 Bigleaf Maple 7 50 32 90 Low Monitor Retain 32 Bigleaf Maple 12 50 32 8p Low Monitor Retain 33 Black Co*onwood 22 112 30 60 Moderate Remove Remove 34 Black Co]onwood 31 112 30 70 Low Monitor Retain 35 Bigleaf Maple 36 118 60 90 Low Monitor Retain 36 Red Alder 22 80 42 90 Low Monitor Retain 37 Black Co]onwood 21 112 60 90 Moderate Monitor Retain Species DBH (In.) Height (Ft.) Crown Spread (Ft.) CondiGon (%) Risk RaGng Treatment StatusTree No. DBH is Diameter Breast Height or 54” from ground measured in inches. Height and Crown Diameter are es3mates. Condi3on ra3ng assigned in 10% increments with 0% describing a dead tree and 100% as a tree in excellent health. Risk Ra3ng categories are low, medium, high and extreme. Treatment describes ac3ons to pursue. Status is informa3on the City might require during permifng. Whispering Pines HOA Page of 4 8 Puget Sound Region. Periodic inspections should be considered as site conditions may change over time. Property owners should consider the facts presented in this report and decide what actions to pursue. Because no one person can predict when trees will fail, there is no warranty or guarantee that trees in this report will not fail. For further information please contact Terry Flatley, 425-891-2625, tjﬂyﬁshing@me.com TREE PHOTOGRAPHS Whispering Pines HOA Page of 5 8 Tree 1. Metal fence post impeded in lower trunks Co]onwood recently fell across street in early September Whispering Pines HOA Page of 6 8 Tree 33 leaning towards house Tree 14 with codominant trunks and leaning west trunk (right) Tree 2 with sever sweeping trunk Tree 5 and other “leaners” Whispering Pines HOA Page of 7 8 Map 3. Mapped wetland area Map4. Mapped steep lopes Whispering Pines HOA Page of 8 8 — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 1 1 2 Black Cottonwood 35”122’69’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years House None ✔✔4 No No Fences None ✔✔✔4 No No Vehicles None ✔✔✔3 Yes No People None ✔✔✔2 No No Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■60 ■■Sudden limb and trunk drop. ■■ ■■ 60 ■10 <3” ■<3”■ 2 No None ■ ■ Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options House Whole tree ●●●Low Fences ●●●Low Vehicles Branches Limb drop ●●●●Moderate People ●●●●Moderate Healthy tree with no obvious defects; bark very healthy Several large live limbs over yard and right-of-way Large structural roots Sounded solid with mallet Prune several over-hanging branches Low ■ ■5 years ■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 2 1 2 Black Cottonwood 14”60’18’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 2 years Fence None ✔✔4 No No Vehicles None ✔✔2 Yes No People None ✔✔2 No No Large leaning cottonwood trunk recently failed causing damage to several vehicles ■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■90 ■■Sudden limb and trunk drop. ■■ ■■ Tree leans toward street at about 12’ at a sharp angle ■80 ■1 <7” 14”60’60’ ■ ■ 30 Yes Lower trunk thickened on downhill side. Potential trunk failure at 12’ from ground. 11”50’ ■ ■ ■ Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Fence Whole tree Lean and defect at 12’ ●●●●Low Vehicles ●●●●Moderate People ●●●●Moderate Trunk exits soil at a steep angle easterly then at 12’ a defect corrects the trunk toward street. Shallow rooted and no visible roots at ground level Yellow tagged. Sounded solid with mallet Remove tree 0 ■ ■1 year ■■ ■■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 3 1 2 Bigleaf maple 9”32’27’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 2 years Fence None ✔✔4 No No Vehicles Partial ✔✔3 Yes No ■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■75 ■■ ■■ ■75 14” Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Fence Whole tree ●●●●Low Vehicles ●●●●Low People ●●●●Low Healthy tree being overtopped by other trees Trunk sounded solid Monitor 0 ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 4 1 2 Black Cottonwood 8”26’18’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 2 years Fence None ✔✔4 No No Vehicles None ✔✔2 Yes No People None ✔✔2 No No Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■60 ■■Sudden limb and trunk drop. ■■ ■■ ■60 10 No Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Fence Whole tree Lean towards street ●●●●Low Vehicles ●●●●Low People ●●●●Low Tree leans toward fence and right of way Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■2 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 5 1 2 Black Cottonwood 21”80’27’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 1 year Fence None ✔✔✔4 No No Vehicles None ✔✔✔2 Yes No People None ✔✔✔2 No No Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■60 ■■Sudden limb and trunk drop. ■■ ■■ ■60 ■10 <1” ■ ■ Large downhill structural root Sudden limb drop 12”80’80’ ■■ ■■ 3 No Thickened lower trunk Sudden trunk failure 21”80’ ■ ■ Large downhill structural root Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Fence Whole tree Sudden trunk/limb failure ●●●●Low Vehicles ●●●●Moderate People ●●●●Moderate Very large structural root on downhill side (east) of tree At 10’ upper trunk leans heavily toward street and lean increases with height Lower trunk sounded solid Yellow tagged Tree removal 0 ■ ■1 year ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 6 1 2 Black Cottonwood 29”125’40’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years House Partial ✔✔4 No No Vehicles None ✔✔3 Yes No People None ✔✔2 No No Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■60 ■■Sudden limb and trunk drop. ■■ ■■ ■60 ■10 <3” ■ Large structural roots on 3 sides Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Fence Whole tree Whole tree failure ●●●●Low Vehicles ●●●●Low People ●●●●Low Very healthy tree Large structural roots on downhill side of tree Lower trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 7 1 2 Black Cottonwood 22”96’42’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 1 year Vehicles None ✔✔✔2 Yes No People None ✔✔✔2 No No Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■10 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■50 ■■Sudden limb and trunk drop. ■■ ■■ Leans toward street ■50 ■10 <2” ■ Root crown at ground level 10”60’60’ ■ ■ 45 No Thickened trunk below 10’ Whole tree failure 22”96’ ■ ■ ■ ■ Root crown at ground level Structural root failure 22”96’ ■ ■ Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Vehicles Whole tree Leaning trunk ●●●●Moderate People ●●●●Moderate Lean increases with height Yellow tagged Lower trunk sounded solid Tree removal 0 ■ ■1 year ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 8 1 2 Black Cottonwood 38”117’40’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■50 Wood borer insects, woodpeckers, decay fungi ■■Sudden limb and trunk drop. ■■ ■■ Tree is hollow for 75% of height. 50 ■2 <5” ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ Crown failure 10”117’117’ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 90 35” None Hollow trunk 38”117’ ■ ■ ■ ■ Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options There are no nearby targets Upper crown alive but tree expected to die or fail in the near future. Retain tree for wildlife habitat None ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 9 1 2 Black Cottonwood 8”49’12’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years Vehicles Partial ✔✔2 Yes No Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■40 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■50 ■■Sudden limb and trunk drop. ■■ ■■ 50 Crown failure 10”49’49’ ■ ■ Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Vehicles Whole tree Whole tree failure ●●●●Low Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 10 1 2 Black Cottonwood 27”124’30’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years Vehicles/driveway Partial ✔✔2 No No Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■2 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■50 ■■Sudden limb and trunk drop. ■■ ■■ ■50 ■3 <2” Crown failure 10”117’117’ 1 Yes ■ ■ Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Vehicles Whole tree ●●●●Low Trunk sounded solid One of 3 stump sprouts Roots not visible Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 11 1 2 Black Cottonwood 19”128’60’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■45 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■40 ■■Sudden limb and trunk drop. ■■ ■■ 50 1 Yes Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Trunk sounded solid One of 3 stump sprouts Roots not visible Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 12 1 2 Black Cottonwood 29”112’60’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 1 year Vehicles/driveway None ✔✔✔2 No No House Partial ✔4 No No Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■2 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■60 ■■Sudden limb and trunk drop. ■■ ■■ ■60 ■5 <2” ■ Sudden branch drop 10” ■ ■ 6 No Large structural root on uphill side of tree Lack of support roots and lean to driveway 29”112’ ■ ■ ■ ■ Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Vehicles Whole tree Lean and weak root attachment ●●●●Moderate House ●●●●Moderate Trunk sounded solid One of 3 stump sprouts Large structural root on uphill side of tree Yellow tagged Tree removal 0 ■ ■1 year ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 13 1 2 Black Cottonwood 15”80’22’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 1 year Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■40 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■40 ■■Sudden limb and trunk drop. ■■ ■■ ■45 ■1 <1” ■ Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 14 1 2 Black Cottonwood 28” (22, 18)112’47’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 1 year Vehicles/driveway None ✔✔✔2 No No People None ✔✔✔2 No No Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■40 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■60 Co-dominant trunks ■■Sudden limb and trunk drop. ■■ ■■ West stem leans toward driveway; east stem straight with no lean ■60 ■1 <2” ■ ■ ■■ 45 West stem no Thickened included bark seam (closed) Leaning west stem 22”112’ ■ ■ ■ Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Vehicles West stem Included bark and severe lean ●●●●Moderate People ●●●●Moderate Trunk sounded solid Yellow tagged Remove both stems 0 ■ ■1 year ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 15 1 2 Red alder 15”50’25’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years ■40 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■50 Co-dominant branches ■■ ■■ 50 ■■ Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 16 1 2 Red alder 12”50’20’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years ■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■60 Co-dominant trunks ■■ ■■ 60 Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 17 1 2 Red alder 14”50’20’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years ■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■60 ■■ ■■ 60 Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 18 1 2 Red alder 16”50’21’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years ■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■60 ■■ ■■ 60 ■ Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 19 1 2 Red alder 13”50’21’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years ■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■50 ■■ ■■ 50 ■1 <2” Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 20 1 2 Red alder 15”50’21’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years ■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■50 Fungal decay in lower trunk ■■ ■■ 50 ■1 <2” ■ 50 4” 3 Yes Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Trunk sounded decayed Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 21 1 2 Red alder 12”50’21’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years Vehicles/driveway Partial ✔✔2 No No People Partial ✔✔2 No No ■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■50 ■■ ■■ 50 ■1 <2” 2 No Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Vehicles/driveway Whole tree Lean towards driveway ●●●●Low People ●●●●Low Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 22 1 2 Red alder 10”50’21’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years Vehicles/driveway None ✔✔✔2 No No People None ✔✔✔2 No No ■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■50 ■■ ■■ 50 ■1 <2” ■ 2 No Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Vehicles/driveway Whole tree Lean ●●●●Low People ●●●●Low Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 23 1 2 Bigleaf maple 12”50’54’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years ■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■50 Co-dominant trunks ■■ ■■■Ivy 50 ■■ ■■ Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 24 1 2 Bigleaf maple 10”50’54’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years ■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■50 Co-dominant trunks ■■ ■■■Ivy 50 ■■ ■■■ Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 25 1 2 Bigleaf maple 12”50’54’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years ■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■50 Co-dominant trunks ■■ ■■■Ivy 50 ■■ ■■ Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■■Steep slope, ivy, debris — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 26 1 2 Bigleaf maple 13”50’54’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years ■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■50 Co-dominant trunks ■■ ■■■Ivy 50 Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■■Steep slope, ivy, debris — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 27 1 2 Bigleaf maple 11”50’54’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years ■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■50 Co-dominant trunks ■■ ■■■Ivy 50 ■ ■■■ Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■■Steep slope, ivy, debris — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 28 1 2 Bigleaf maple 12”50’54’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years ■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■50 Co-dominant trunks ■■ ■■■Ivy 50 Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■■Steep slope, ivy, debris — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 29 1 2 Red alder 21”50’40’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years ■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■50 ■■ ■■■Ivy 50 ■3 <6” Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 30 1 2 Red alder 20”50’40’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years ■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■50 ■■ ■■■Ivy 50 ■3 <6” Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 31 1 2 Bigleaf maple 7”50’32’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years ■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■50 ■■ ■■ 50 ■ Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 32 1 2 Bigleaf maple 12”50’32’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years ■30 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■50 ■■ ■■ 50 ■ Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Trunk sounded solid Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 33 1 2 Black Cottonwood 22”112’30 T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years Fence None ✔✔✔4 No No House/yard None ✔✔4 No No People None ✔✔✔2 No No Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■45 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■75 Ivy ■■Branch and trunk drop ■■ ■■■Ivy ■75 ■1 <2” 30 No Whole tree failure 22”112’ ■ ■ ■ Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Fence Whole tree Severe lean towards house ●●●●Low House ●●●●Moderate People ●●●●Moderate Trunk sounded solid Roots not visible Yellow tagged Tree removal 0 ■ ■1 year ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 34 1 2 Black Cottonwood 31”112’30 T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■45 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■60 Ivy ■■Branch and trunk drop ■■ ■■■Ivy ■60 3-5 No ■ ■ Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Trunk sounded solid Roots not visible Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■■Debris and ivy over root crown — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 35 1 2 Bigleaf maple 36”118’60’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years ■10 E ■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■60 Ivy ■■ ■■ 60 3-5 No Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 36 1 2 Red alder 36”118’60’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years ■2 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■70 ■■ ■■ 70 Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Monitor Low ■ ■5 years ■■ ■ — Trunk — — Crown and Branches — — Roots and Root Collar — Unbalanced crown  LCR ______% Dead twigs/branches  ______% overall Max. dia. ________ Broken/Hangers Number __________ Max. dia. ________ Over-extended branches  Pruning history Crown cleaned  Reduced  Flush cuts  Thinned  Topped  Other Raised  Lion-tailed  Cracks  ________________________________ Lightning damage  Codominant ______________________________ Included bark  Weak attachments _________________ Cavity/Nest hole ____% circ. Previous branch failures _____________ Similar branches present  Dead/Missing bark  Cankers/Galls/Burls  Sapwood damage/decay  Conks  Heartwood decay  ______________________ Response growth Client _______________________________________________________________ Date___________________ Time_________________ Address/Tree location _________________________________________________________ Tree no.____________ Sheet _____ of _____ Tree species _________________________________________ dbh_____________ Height ___________ Crown spread dia. ____________ Assessor(s) __________________________________________ Tools used______________________________ Time frame_____________ Target Assessment T a r g e t nu m b e r Target description Target protection P r a c t i c a l t o m o v e t a r g e t ? R e s t r i c t i o n p r a c t i c a l ? Ta r g e t w i t h i n dr i p l i n e T a r g e t w i t h i n 1 x H t . Ta r g e t w i t h i n 1. 5 x H t . 1 2 3 4 History of failures _____________________________________________________________ Topography Flat Slope _________% Aspect _____ Site changes None  Grade change  Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts Describe _____________________________________ Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated Shallow Compacted Pavement over roots ______% Describe __________________________ Prevailing wind direction______ Common weather Strong winds  Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe______________________________ Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low  Normal  High  Foliage None (seasonal) None (dead) Normal _____% Chlorotic _____% Necrotic _____% Pests/Biotic_________________________________________________ Abiotic _______________________________________________________ Species failure profile Branches Trunk Roots Describe ____________________________________________________________________ Load Factors Wind exposure Protected Partial Full Wind funneling ________________________ Relative crown size Small Medium Large Crown density Sparse Normal Dense Interior branches Few Normal Dense Vines/Mistletoe/Moss  _____________________ Recent or expected change in load factors ________________________________________________________________________________________ Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Occupancy rate1–rare 2 – occasional 3 – frequent 4 – constant Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Page 1 of 2 Site Factors Target zone Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  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 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 Condition(s) of concern Load on defect N/A  Minor  Moderate  Significant  Likelihood of failure Improbable  Possible  Probable  Imminent  Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Dan Foster, President, Whispering Pines HOA 9/19/25 9:00 a.m. Ref. Address: 1813 NE 26 Pl. Tract - PID 934760T100, NE Section 5-T23N-R5E 37 1 2 Black Cottonwood 21”122’40’ T. Flatley D-tape, compass, mallet, camera 5 years Fence ✔✔✔4 No No House/yard ✔✔4 No No People ✔✔2 No No Nearby cottonwood tree failed at trunk 10’ from ground damaging fence and vehicles.■40 E ■ ■■ SW ■■Typical Paciﬁc Northwest Region ■60 ■■ Branch and trunk drop ■■ ■■ 60 Target (Target number or description)Tree part Condition(s) of concern Risk rating (from Matrix 2) Matrix 1. Likelihood matrix. Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impact Very low 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 Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Likelihood Im p r o b a b l e Im m i n e n t Po s s i b l e Ve r y l o w Un l i k e l y Ne g l i g i b l e Me d i u m Li k e l y Si g n i f i c a n t Pr o b a b l e Lo w So m e w h a t Mi n o r Hi g h Ve r y l i k e l y Se v e r e Consequences Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Ne g l i g i b l e Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low Data Final  Preliminary Advanced assessment needed No Yes-Type/Reason ________________________________________________ Inspection limitations None Visibility Access Vines Root collar buried Describe ___________________________________________ Notes, explanations, descriptions 1.__________________________________________________________________________________ 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  Extreme  Recommended inspection interval __________________ This datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) — 2017 North Page 2 of 2 Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Risk Categorization Mitigation options Fence Whole tree Trunk failure ●●●●Low House/yard ●●●●Moderate People ●●●●Moderate Trunk sounded solid Tree is very healthy Slope is negligible but drops off on east side of tree Trunk has no lean Monitor ■ ■5 years ■■ ■