The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR_Arborist Report_251117_v1ARBORIST REPORT Prepared By: Terrence J. Flatley Certified Arborist TRAQ Firestation 14, 1900 Renton, WA 98055 C/O Donald Highley, Facility Technician September 5, 2025 ARBORIST REPORT Firestation 14 1900 SW Lind Avenue Renton, Washington 98055 C/O Donald Highley, Facility Technician INTRODUCTION Donald Highley, Facility Technician to the Renton Regional Fire Authority, requested an Arborist Report to apply for City of Renton permits in order to remove several dead trees on the grounds of Firestation 14. The ﬁrestation is located at 1900 SW Lind Avenue. Geographically it is located in the Southwest Quarter Section 19, Township 23 North, Range 5 East. The parcel identiﬁcation number is 3340400425. The parcel is 261,781 square feet including the ﬁrestation and maintained grounds as well as a wooded cottonwood stand along the east and south boundaries. This report applies to the landscape trees found along the north side of the building, trees in the parking lot, trees along SW Lind Avenue and trees along the south side of the building inside the fence. METHOD Each tree was measured to gather data shown in Table 1 below using a basic level of tree risk assessment from ground level. Information was gathered on the “ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form.” Tree locations were pinpointed by number on aerial maps. The maps relate to Table 1. Photographs of the dead trees were taken with labels for Trees 1 through 15. Live trees are shown with numbers 16 through 27 on the maps only; live trees were not photographed intentionally. An estimate of the quantity of cottonwood trees was made for areas to the east and south boundaries. Table 1 is the tree inventory for Trees 1 through 27. It summarizes information on the assessment forms for each tree. “Basic Tree Risk Assessment Forms were completed for tree removals (Trees 1 through 7, 10 and 11, 13 through 15, 22 and 23) found at the end of this report. TREE LOCATION MAPS Area Map Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 2 14 Map 1. Loca(on of Firesta(on 14 at 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA Site and Tree Location Map Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 3 14 Map 2. Dead and Live Trees TABLE 1. TREE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT Tree No. Species DBH (In.) Height (Ft.) Crown Diameter (Ft.) Condi=on (%) Risk Ra=ng Comment 1 Beech 11 20 24 0 High Dead 2 Beech 7 21 22 0 High Dead 3 Beech 10 40 30 0 High Dead 4 Leyland cypress 14 40 24 0 High Dead 5 Cherry 7 10 10 0 Low Dead 6 Cherry 8 16 24 0 High Dead 7 Cherry 10 18 24 0 High Dead 8 Pear 6 28 18 50 Low Prune 9 Pear 2 12 6 50 Low Prune 10 Pear 7 24 24 40 Low Dead 11 Pear 7 24 22 20 High Remove 12 Pear 8 27 24 60 Moderate Prune 13 Cherry 9 16 16 0 Low Dead 14 Cherry 7 11 15 0 Low Dead 15 Cherry 7 11 21 0 Low Dead 22 Cherry 11 17 33 50 Low Dead 23 Cherry 10 16 27 60 Low 50% Dead Trees Not Scheduled for Maintenance (Below) 16 Beech 12 32 36 80 Low Live 17 Leyland cypress 20 70 27 80 Low Live 18 Beech 10 32 15 70 Low Live 19 Pear 6 20 21 80 Low Live 20 Pear 5 13 21 70 Low Live 21 Pear 6 13 15 70 Low Live Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 4 14 24 Leyland cypress 25 90 42 80 Low Live 25 Pear 6 16 10 80 Low Live 26 Pear 6 16 10 70 Low Live 27 Leyland cypress 25 87 30 80 Low Live Tree No. Species DBH (In.) Height (Ft.) Crown Diameter (Ft.) Condi=on (%) Risk Ra=ng Comment Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 5 14 Map 3. Dead Trees 1 thru 7, 10, 11, 13 thru 15 and 22, 23 to be removed Map 4. Live Trees 16 thru 21, 24 thru 27 to be retained CONCLUSION The information in this report uses a basic level assessment at ground level and considers tree condition under normal weather conditions typical of the 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 Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 6 14 Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 7 14 Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 8 14 Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 9 14 Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 10 14 Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 11 14 Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 12 14 Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 13 14 Firesta(on 14.Rev.1 Page of 14 14 — 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 Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 1 1 2 (American) Beech 11”20’24’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Building Concrete wall ✔✔✔4 N N Vehicles None ✔✔3 N Y People None ✔✔2 N Y None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■0 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■ ■■■■ Branches susceptible to breakage during wind events; trunk currently 100% dead, subject to failure as time passes 0 ■100 4” ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ Branch failure at the present time 4” ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Dead tree 11”20’ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Dead root system ■ ■ 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 Building Whole tree Dead tree ●●●●Low Vehicles ●●●●High People ●●●●High Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree removal 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ — 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 Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 2 1 2 (American) Beech 7”21’22’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Building None ✔✔✔4 N N Vehicles None ✔✔3 N Y People None ✔✔✔2 N Y None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■0 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■ ■■■■ Branches susceptible to breakage during wind events; trunk currently 100% dead, subject to failure as time passes 0 ■100 4” ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ Branch failure at the present time 4”21’21’ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Dead tree 7”21’ ■ ■ ■ Dead root system ■ ■ 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 Building Whole tree Dead tree ●●●●Low Vehicles ●●●●Low People ●●●●High Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree removal 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ — 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 Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 3 1 2 (American) Beech 10”40’30’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Building None ✔✔✔4 N N Vehicles None ✔✔✔3 N Y People None ✔✔✔2 N Y None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■0 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■ ■■■ Branches susceptible to breakage during wind events; trunk currently 100% dead, subject to failure as time passes 0 ■100 6” ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ Branch failure at the present time 6”40’40’ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Dead tree 10”40’ ■ ■ ■ Dead root system ■ ■ 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 Building Whole tree Dead tree ●●●●Low Vehicles ●●●●High People ●●●●High Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree removal 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ — 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 Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 4 1 2 Leyland cypress 13”40’24’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Lighting None ✔✔4 N N Vehicles None ✔✔✔3 N Y People None ✔✔✔2 N Y None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■0 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■ ■■■ Branches susceptible to breakage during wind events; trunk currently 100% dead, subject to failure as time passes 0 ■100 <3” ■ ■ ■■ ■ Branch failure at the present time 6”40’40’ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ Dead tree 13”40’ ■ ■ ■ Dead root system ■ ■ 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 Lighting Whole tree Dead tree ●●●●Moderate Vehicles ●●●●High People ●●●●Moderate Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree removal 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ — 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 Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 5 1 2 Ornamental cherry 7”10’10’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Sidewalk None ✔4 N N People None ✔2 N N None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■0 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■ ■■■ Trunk currently 100% dead, subject to failure as time passes ■0 ■100 6” ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ Branch failure at the present time <6”5’5’ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ Dead tree 7”10’ ■ ■ ■ Dead root system ■ ■ 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 Sidewalk Whole tree Dead tree ●●●●Low People ●●●●Low Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree removal 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ — 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 Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 6 1 2 Ornamental cherry 8”16’24’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Sidewalk None ✔✔4 N N People None ✔✔2 N N Vehicles None ✔✔3 N Y None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■0 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■ ■■■ Trunk currently 100% dead, subject to failure as time passes ■0 ■100 < 6” ■ ■■ ■ ■ Branch failure at the present time <6”8’8’ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ Dead tree 8”16’ ■ ■ ■■ ■ Dead root system ■ ■ 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 Sidewalk Whole tree Dead tree ●●●●Low People ●●●●High Vehicles ●●●●Low Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree removal 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ — 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 Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 7 1 2 Ornamental cherry 10”18’24’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Sidewalk None ✔✔4 N N People None ✔✔2 N Y Vehicles None ✔✔3 N Y None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■0 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■■ ■■■ Trunk currently 100% dead, subject to failure as time passes ■0 ■100 < 4” ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Branch failure at the present time <4”8’8’ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ Dead tree 10”18’ ■ ■ ■■ ■ Dead root system ■ ■ 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 Sidewalk Whole tree Dead tree ●●●●Low People ●●●●High Vehicles ●●●●Moderate Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree removal 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ — 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 Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 10 1 2 Ornamental pear 7”24’24’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Emergency Vehicles None ✔3 N N Lighting None ✔4 N N People None ✔✔2 N N Fence None ✔✔4 N N None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■40 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■ ■■ ■40 ■60 < 3” ■ Branch failure at the present time 3” ■ ■ Dying tree ■ 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 Em. Vehicles Dead branches Dead Branches ●●●●Low Lighting ●●●●Low People ●●●●Low Fence ●●●●Low Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree is in decline and not expected to recover Remove tree 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ — 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 Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 11 1 2 Ornamental pear 7”24’22’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Emergency Vehicles None ✔✔3 N N People None ✔✔2 N N Fence None ✔✔4 N N None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■20 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■ ■■ ■20 ■80 < 4” ■ ■ Branch failure at the present time 4”24’24’ ■ ■ Dying tree ■ 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 Em. Vehicles Dead branches Dead Branches ●●●●Moderate People ●●●●Low Fence ●●●●Low Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree is in decline and not expected to recover Remove tree 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ — 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 Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 13 1 2 Ornamental cherry 9”16’16’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately People None ✔✔2 N N Fence None ✔✔4 N N None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■ None evident Lack of adequate water ■■■ ■■ ■0 ■100 < 4” ■ ■ ■ Branch failure at the present time 4”16’16’ ■ ■ ■ Dying tree ■ ■ 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 Dead branches Dead BranchesPeople ●●●●Low Fence ●●●●●Low Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Remove tree 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ — 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 Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 14 1 2 Ornamental cherry 7”11’15’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately People None ✔✔2 N N Fence None ✔✔4 N N None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■ None evident Lack of adequate water ■■■ ■■ ■0 ■100 < 4” ■ ■ ■ Branch failure at the present time 4”16’16’ ■ ■ ■ Dying tree ■ ■ 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 Dead branches Dead BranchesPeople ●●●●Low Fence ●●●●●Low Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Remove tree 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ — 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 Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 15 1 2 Ornamental cherry 7”11’21’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately People None ✔✔2 N N Fence None ✔✔4 N N None ■ ■ ■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■ None evident Lack of adequate water ■■■ ■■ ■0 ■100 < 4” ■ ■ ■ Branch failure at the present time 4”16’16’ ■ ■ ■ Dying tree ■ ■ 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 Dead branches Dead BranchesPeople ●●●●Low Fence ●●●●●Low Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Remove tree 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ — 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 Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 22 1 2 Ornamental cherry 12”15’33’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Sidewalk None ✔✔4 N N People None ✔✔2 N Y Vehicles None ✔✔3 N Y None ■ ■ ■■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■■0 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■■ ■■ Trunk currently 100% dead, subject to failure as time passes ■0 ■100 < 4” ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Branch failure at the present time <4”15’15’ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ Dead tree 12”33’ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ Dead root system ■ ■■ 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 Sidewalk Whole tree Dead tree ●●●●Low People ●●●●High Vehicles ●●●●Moderate Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree removal 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■ — 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 Donald Highley, Renton Regional Fire Authority, c/o Knut Hanson, Hanson Tree Service 8/25/25 12:00 p.m. 1900 SW Lind Avenue, Renton, WA 98057, 23 1 2 Ornamental cherry 11”13’30’ Terry Flatley Diameter tape, camera Immediately Sidewalk None ✔✔4 N N People None ✔✔2 N Y Vehicles None ✔✔3 N Y None ■ ■ ■■Very dry soils SW ■■Typical for PNW Region (TPNWR) ■50 None evident Lack of adequate water ■■■ ■■ Trunk currently 100% dead, subject to failure as time passes ■50 ■100 < 4” ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Branch failure at the present time <4”13’13’ ■■ ■■ ■ ■ Dead tree 11”13’ ■ ■ ■ ■■ Dead root system ■ ■ 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 Sidewalk Whole tree Dead tree ●●●●Low People ●●●●Moderate Vehicles ●●●●Low Lack of irrigation/water. Irrigation turned off Tree removal 0 ■ ■Remove asap ■■ ■