Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS_TreeRiskAssessment_220927 A.B.C Consulting Arborists LLC Accurate Balanced Certified Phillips Tree Risk Assessment July 20, 2022 PREPARED FOR: Paul Phillips 5616 NE 1st PL Renton, WA 98059 PREPARED BY: A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC Daniel Maple, Consultant Registered Consulting Arborist #627 Tree & Plant Appraisal Qualified (TPAQ) ISA Municipal Specialist # PN-7970BM ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) ISA Board Certified Master Arborist #PN-7970BM Phillips Tree Risk Assessment, Renton, WA. By, A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC July 20, 2022 Page 2 of 17 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONSULTING ARBORIST .................................................................................................................... 2 ASSIGNMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Limitations .............................................................................................................................................. 3 PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................................. 3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 3 SITE ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 Targets..................................................................................................................................................... 3 TREES ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Location and ID ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Non-Viable/Hazard Trees ....................................................................................................................... 4 Critical Area / Buffers ............................................................................................................................. 4 Fungi/Decay Pathogens .......................................................................................................................... 4 Minimum Tree Density RMC 4-4-130 D, i. ........................................................................................... 4 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 4 CERTIFICATION .................................................................................................................................... 5 ATTACHMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 6 ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 CONSULTING ARBORIST Daniel J. Maple / A.B.C. Consulting Arborists, LLC Westside (425) 999-0867 Daniel@AbcArborist.Com Eastside (509) 953-0293 Certifications ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist (RCA) # 627 ASCA Tree & Plant Appraisal Qualified (TPAQ) December 15, 2024 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-7970BM ISA Certified Arborist Municipal Specialist PN-7970BM ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) May 13, 2025 ATFS Qualified Tree Farm Inspector # 169449 Commercial Applicator # 92432 Commercial UAV Airman Pilot # 4135495 Phillips Tree Risk Assessment, Renton, WA. By, A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC July 20, 2022 Page 3 of 17 ASSIGNMENT • Provide a Level 2 Risk assessment (as defined by the ISA) on 2 trees across road by driveway. • Provide recommendations to mitigate any noted risks. • Provide a written report of my observations, analysis and recommendations. Limitations We took every reasonable effort to accurately determine the level of risk associated with the trees, however, it is possible that internal decay may exist and not been detected. This report is not a health assessment, nutrient analysis, or quote to provide services, it is limited to the scope of the assignment. PURPOSE This report is intended to identify and reduce exposure to tree related risks: • To identify tree(s) defects that pose a risk(s) to the above home(s) and personal property, as well as the owners and their guests. • Provide reasonable mitigation options to reduce risk to acceptable levels. • To document tree hazards for obtaining a tree cutting permit if one is required. METHODOLOGY To evaluate the trees, as well as to prepare this report, I drew upon my 30+ years of experience in the field of arboriculture and my formal education. I followed the protocol of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and I performed my assessment considering the following BMPs. ANSI A300 Part 1 – Pruning. ANSI A300 Part 3 – Supplemental Support Systems. ANSI A300 Part 9 – Tree Risk Assessment (Second Edition). ANSI A300 Part 10 – Integrated Pest Management. Best Management Practices were developed to aid in the interpretation of professional standards and guide work practices based upon current science and technology. Using this process, I performed my assessment, which included looking at the overall health of the trees as well as the site conditions. SITE The trees were located on Parcel 666450TR-B / KingCountyiMap notes environmental issues on the site. Soils were native, uncompacted, and low in moisture. The trees were exposed to the prevailing high winds. Ganoderma decay fungi was noted in one tree. No other relevant site conditions were noted. Targets The primary targets were the home, vehicles, and the users of the property(s). The targets cannot reasonably be moved or the area restricted. Phillips Tree Risk Assessment, Renton, WA. By, A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC July 20, 2022 Page 4 of 17 TREES Per RMC 4-11-200 a significant tree is a non-hazard tree, 1. that is not on the King County Weed List 1 2. is 6” in diameter or greater as measure 4.5 above the ground (DBH) (8” for cottonwood / alder) 3. or planted in the last ten-years. 4. A landmark tree is 30” or greater. Location and ID The 2 trees were across the road, SW of the home. They are referenced as 1 & 2. Refer to Attachment 1, Site Images for the approximate location of the trees. Non-Viable/Hazard Trees 2 Tree 1 was a 30.2” DBH hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). It was dead with a large decay cavity on the north side of the lower trunk. Ganoderma decay fungi was noted in the cavity Tree 2 was a 20” DBH hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla). It was ½ dead. It was located 9-inches NE of tree #1. It is likely that the decay noted in tree 1 has spread to tree 2. When I sounded tree 2, it sounded somewhat decayed or hollow. Tree Using the ISA Risk Matrix and the following: Likelihood of Failure = Probable. Likelihood of Impact = High Consequences of Event = Significant 3 Both trees are rated as High Risk. Critical Area / Buffers Both trees are likely in a critical area/buffer. Fungi/Decay Pathogens 4 They decay fungi Ganoderma applanatum is was found in 1 tree and is suspected though not confirmed in tree 2. Minimum Tree Density RMC 4-4-130 D, i. No trees will be removed of a residential site. The trees are located in a treed tract. Therefore, Minimum lot density will not be impacted. RECOMMENDATIONS It is my professional recommendation that both trees be reduced to 15-ft tall habitat snags as soon as reasonably possible, and certainly before the next significant weather event. 1 Bird cherry, black locust, English holly, English laurel, & European mountain-ash. 2 See Attachment - Photos, Attachment -Tree summary, Attachment -Resistograph for more details. 3 Left unmitigated the consequences will likely be severe. 4 See Attachment 10-Decay fungi for detailed information on the fungi suspected and/or found on the site. Phillips Tree Risk Assessment, Renton, WA. By, A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC July 20, 2022 Page 5 of 17 CERTIFICATION I, Daniel J, Maple, Certify to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. That the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. That the analysis, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and that they are my personal, unbiased professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions. 3. That I have no present or prospective interest in the property or plants that are the subject of this report, and that I had no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. 4. That my compensation is not contingent upon a predetermined value or direction and that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent event. 5. That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed to reflect reasonable conformity with current ANSI A300 Best Management Practices and Industry Standards. 6. The report is based on the information known to me at the time of my assessment. If more information is disclosed, I may have further opinions. 7. The report is based on my analysis at the time of the assessment and covers that time frame only; any additional limitations are addressed in the body of the report and/or in the attachments. 8. That statements of fact in the report are correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that they are made in good faith. I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist / Qualified Tree & Plant Appraiser in good standing with the American Society of Consulting Arborists; ISA Board-Certified Master Arborist; Municipal Arborist; Tree Risk Assessment Qualified in good standing with the ISA; and I am a Qualified Tree Farm Inspector in good standing with the American Forest Foundation. I have been involved full time in the field of arboriculture, urban forestry, and horticulture for over 30-years. . Thank you for contacting A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC for your arboricultural needs. Sincerely, Daniel Maple, Consulting Arborist Registered Consulting Arborist #627 Tree & Plant Appraisal Qualified (TPAQ) ISA Municipal Specialist # PN-7970BM ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) ISA Board Certified Master Arborist #PN-7970BM Phillips Tree Risk Assessment, Renton, WA. By, A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC July 20, 2022 Page 6 of 17 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1 - SITE IMAGES ....................................................................................................... 7 ATTACHMENT 2 - PHOTOS ................................................................................................................ 8 ATTACHMENT 3 - TREE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 9 ATTACHMENT 4 - HARARDOUS TREE DECLARATION .......................................................... 10 ATTACHMENT 5 - RISK ASSESMENT DEFINITIONS & PROCESS ......................................... 11 ATTACHMENT 6 - DECAY FUNGI ................................................................................................... 14 ATTACHMENT 7 - ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS .............................................. 16 ATTACHMENT 8 - REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 17 Phillips Tree Risk Assessment, Renton, WA. By, A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC July 20, 2022 Page 7 of 17 ATTACHMENT 1 - SITE IMAGES King County iMap North 1 2 Phillips Tree Risk Assessment, Renton, WA. By, A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC July 20, 2022 Page 8 of 17 ATTACHMENT 2 - PHOTOS Photo 1 Tree 1 & 2 Photo 2 Ganoderma Conks Photo 3 Ganoderma Conks Photo 4 Cavity with decay 1 2 Phillips Tree Risk Assessment, Renton, WA. By, A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC July 20, 2022 Page 9 of 17 ATTACHMENT 3 - TREE SUMMARY ID Species Scientific Name DBH Height Spread Defect/Decay/LCR/PT/Other Risk Recommend 1 Hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 30.3 100+ NA Dead, Decay Cavity, decay fungi High Habitat @ 15’ 2 Hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 20 100+ 28 ½ Dead, sounded decayed, hollow, root decay likely. Med/High Habitat @ 15’ ISA RISK MATRIX Matrix I. Likelihood matrix. Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Negligible 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 TARGETS: 1) Home 2) Neighbors Home 3) Vehicles 4) Pedestrians 5) Outbuildings 6) Pets 7) Other: Transmission lines TREE NUMBER Tree part Condition of concern Size of Part Fall Distance Target Number Target protection Likelihood Consequences Risk rating of part (from Matrix) Failure Impact Failure & Impact (from Matrix 1) Improbable Possible Probable Immanent Very Low Low Medium High Unlikely Somewhat Likely Very Likely Negligible Minor Significant Severe 1 Whole Cavity and decay. Dead 30 100 1, 3, 4 N X X X X High 1 Whole ½ Dead, Decay likely 20 100 1, 3, 4 N X X X X X X Med/High likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impacting Target 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 Phillips Tree Risk Assessment, Renton, WA. By, A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC July 20, 2022 Page 10 of 17 ATTACHMENT 4 - HARARDOUS TREE DECLARATION All the statements below must be checked and attested to by an International Society of Arboriculture CERTIFIED ARBORIST prior to the removal of any tree(s) in the areas listed above.  The tree(s) proposed for removal have been certified as hazardous / Not Viable.  The potential target(s) cannot be moved.  Pruning, partial removal of parts of the tree(s) or other risk mitigation measures will not alleviate the hazard or are not feasible. (Explain what measures were considered and why they were not feasible.)  A COPY OF A COMPLETED INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE “TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM” OR AN EQUIVALENT TREE RISK ASSESSMENT MUST BE INCLUDED WITH THIS FORM. ONE TREE HAZARD EVALUATION OR ASSESSMENT MUST BE COMPLETED PER TREE. Comments: The Data collected contains all the elements from the ISA Risk Form it is uploaded in Tree Plotter our Tree Management Program. The Risk Ratings are auto computed using an electronic version of the ISA RISK Matrix within our program. Arborist Contact Information: Name(Print): Daniel J Maple Company: A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC Phone #: (509) 953-0293 (425)999-0867 Email Daniel@AbcArborist.Com Signature of Arborist:_______________________________ Credentials: ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist (RCA) # 627 ASCA Tree & Plant Appraisal Qualified (TPAQ) December 15, 2024 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-7970BM ISA Certified Arborist Municipal Specialist PN-7970BM ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) May 13, 2025 Phillips Tree Risk Assessment, Renton, WA. By, A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC July 20, 2022 Page 11 of 17 ATTACHMENT 5 - RISK ASSESMENT DEFINITIONS & PROCESS Level 1 Limited Visual Assessment: Involves a visual assessment of an individual tree or group of trees near specified targets, conducted from a specified perspective in order to identify obvious defects or specified conditions. A limited visual assessment typically focuses on identifying trees with imminent and/or probable likelihood of failure. Level 1 assessments do not always meet the criteria for a "risk assessment" if they do not include analysis and evaluation of individual trees. Limited visual assessments are the fastest, but least thorough, means of assessment and are intended primarily for managing large populations of trees when time and resources are limited. The assessments may be done as walk-by, drive-by, aerial patrol, or LiDAR as requested by the tree owner or manager. The assessment is often done on a specified schedule and/or immediately after storms to rapidly assess a tree population. A limited Visual Assessment, performed from one side or by an aerial flyover, typically looks for obvious defects such as dead trees, large cavity openings, cracks, and severe or uncorrected leans. In addition, the client may specify certain conditions of concern, such as lethal pests or symptoms associated with root decay. Level 2 Basic Assessment: This is a detailed visual inspection of a tree and its surrounding site, and a synthesis of the information collected. It requires that a tree risk assessor inspect completely around the tree - looking at the site, and visible buttress roots, trunk, and branches. This is the level of assessment that is commonly performed by arborists in response to clients’ requests for individual tree risk assessments. A level 2 basic assessment may include the use of simple tools to gain additional information about the tree or defects. The use of simple tools maybe used to measure the tree and acquire more information about it or any potential defects, however, the use of these tools is not mandatory unless specified in the scope of work. Simple tools may include diameter tape, clinometer or hypsometer, level/plumb bob, binoculars, mallet, probe, and digging tools. The primary limitation of a basic assessment is that it includes only conditions that are detected from a ground-based inspection on the day of the assessment. Internal, belowground, or upper-crown conditions, as well as certain types of decay, may be impossible to see or difficult to assess and may remain undetected. Level 3 Advanced Assessment: Advanced assessments are performed to provide detailed information about specific tree parts, defects, targets or site conditions. They usually are conducted in conjunction with or after a basic assessment if the assessor needs additional information and the client approves the service. Specialized equipment, data collection and analysis, and/or expertise are usually required for advanced assessments. These assessments are therefore generally more time intensive and more expensive. Procedures and methodologies should be selected and applied as appropriate, with consideration for what is reasonable and proportionate to the specific conditions and situations. The risk manager/property owner should consider the value of the tree to the owner and community, the possible consequences of failure, the time and expense needed to provide the advanced assessment. The tree risk assessor should identify what additional information is needed and recommend the appropriate technique(s). Many techniques can be considered for advanced tree risk assessment. Some situations may be assessed with several techniques. Advanced assessment techniques may include but are not limited to: aerial inspection and evaluation of structural defects in high stems and branches, detailed target analysis, detailed site evaluation, decay testing, health evaluation, root inspection and evaluation, storm/wind load analysis, measuring and assessing the change in trunk lean, and load testing. Phillips Tree Risk Assessment, Renton, WA. By, A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC July 20, 2022 Page 12 of 17 Risk Assessment In qualitative tree risk assessment, assessors can use a matrix to help categorize risk. When categorizing tree risk, the factors to be considered are the likelihood of a tree failure impacting a target and the consequences of the failure. The likelihood of a tree failure impacting a target determined by considering the two factors: 1. The likelihood of a tree failure occurring within a specified time frame 5. The likelihood of tree failure is determined by examining structural conditions, defects, response growth, and anticipated loads. 2. The likelihood of the failed tree or parts impacting the specified target. Impact may be the tree directly striking the target, or it may be a disruption of activities due to the failure. These two factors are evaluated and categorized using a matrix to estimate the likelihood of the combined event; a tree failure occurring and the tree impacting the specified target = likelihood of an event occurring. The likelihood of an event occurring is then compared with the expected consequences of a failure impacting the target to determine the level of risk. Likelihood of Failure The likelihood of failure is the chance of a tree or tree part failure occurring within the specified timeframe is primarily determined by site factors, response growth, tree health, tree species, load, defects and conditions. The likelihood of failure is classified in one of four categories; 1. Imminent; failure has started or is most likely to occur in the near future, even if there is no significant wind or increased load. The eminent category overrides the stated timeframe. 2. Probable; failure may be expected under normal weather conditions 6 within the specified timeframe. 3. Possible; failure may be expected in extreme weather conditions 7, but it is unlikely during normal weather conditions within the specified timeframe. 4. Improbable; the tree or tree part is not likely to fail during normal weather conditions and may not fail in extreme weather conditions within the specified timeframe. Likelihood of Impact The likelihood of impact is the chance of a tree failure impacting a target during the specified timeframe it is determined by considering 1) occupancy rates, 2) location within the target zone, 3) protection factors, 4) direction of fall. The likelihood of impact is classified in one of four categories; 1. High; the failed tree or tree part is likely to impact the target. 2. Medium; the failed tree or tree part could impact the target but is not expected to do so. 3. Low; there’s a slight chance that the failed tree or tree part will impact the target. 4. Very low; the chance of the failed three or tree part impact in the specified target is remote. 5 In the weather events common to the region; based on 30-year weather history – minus the extreme events = “common” per TRAQ, ANSI. 6 Historical data shows common winds for the region are 0 - 25 mph 7 Based on historical data winds 47-55 mph would be considered extreme for the region. Phillips Tree Risk Assessment, Renton, WA. By, A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC July 20, 2022 Page 13 of 17 Likelihood of Failure and Impact Using the likelihood of failure, the likelihood of impacting a target, and the likelihood matrix the likelihood of an event happening is categorized. Consequences of Failure The consequences of failure; personal injury, property damage, or disruption of activities due to the failure of a tree or tree part are affected; by tree or tree part size, fall distance of tree or tree part, protection factors, target value/damage. Consequences of failure are classified into one of four categories; 1. Severe; serious personal injury or death, high value property damage, or major disruption of important activities. 2. Significant; substantial personal injury, moderate to high value property damage, or considerable disruption of activities. 3. Minor; minor personal property, low to moderate value property damage, or small disruption of activities. 4. Negligible; no personal injury, low value property damage, or disruptions I can be replaced or repaired. Risk Rating Using the likelihood of an event happening (steps 1-3), the consequences of failure, and the risk rating matrix, a risk rating is assigned to the tree or tree parts. Matrix 1 & Matrix 2 as used in the risk assessment process. Matrix I. Likelihood matrix. Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Failure & Impact Consequences of Failure Negligible 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 likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impacting Target 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 Phillips Tree Risk Assessment, Renton, WA. By, A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC July 20, 2022 Page 14 of 17 ATTACHMENT 6 - DECAY FUNGI Ganoderma Latin name Ganoderma applanatum Typical Host tree in the Pacific Northwest Region Deciduous and coniferous trees. Form of fruiting body Perennial Annual Polypore Gilled Type of decay White rot Brown rot Soft rot White rot - preferential loss of lignin, some break down lignin & cellulose. Brown rot - preferential loss of cellulose. Soft rot - breaks down cellulose. Typically attacks: Live wood Dead wood Both Typical location of decay Root rot Butt rot Sap rot Heart rot Comments: Leathery to woody conk, flat, plate-like bracket, upper surface light brown, ridged. Lower surface is white when fresh and active, brown when old. Conk may persist for many years. The bracket form is always horizontal in layout. Downed trees with horizontal brackets suggest the brackets developed after failure. If the brackets are vertical, then they were present prior to failure. Infected trees may show reduced growth rates and smaller than usual leaf size. Early stages may be a white polypore with no defined upper and lower surface. Early decay stage bleaches the wood, circled by a dark brown stain. Advanced decay turns the wood white, mottled, and spongy. Expect to see decay above and below the conk. If multiple conks are present expect extensive decay. New infections spread by spores. When actively reproducing, there may be an area of fine brown powder (the spores) below and near to the conk. Ganoderma brackets may sometimes look similar to Fomitopsis pinicola conks. The simple test is to scratch the underside area. Ganoderma applanatum conks will retain an etched line. Fomitopsis conks do not show any discoloration when scratched. Ganoderma decays dead wood but can enter live trees through wound areas, and may cause extensive decay. There is no control for Ganoderma applanatum. Infected trees may decline slowly, and if in good health, some species may be able to wall off and contain the decay pockets for many years. Oaks generally appear to be better able to compartmentalize an infection than the maples. On western hemlock decay is likely to be present for about 3 meters above and below a fruiting body. Risk assessment and management implications Examine age, overall health, and growth rate of tree and conk. It may be necessary to perform a Level 3 Advanced Risk Assessment to map the extent of the decay using sonic tomography and resistance drilling. The presence of multiple conks may be enough justification for removal of the tree. Phillips Tree Risk Assessment, Renton, WA. By, A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC July 20, 2022 Page 15 of 17 Ganoderma applanatum Ganoderma applanatum on Big leaf maple in conjunction with Kretzschmaria deusta. Expect to see extensive internal decay. Ganoderma applanatum on Douglas-fir Multiple conks suggest extensive internal decay. Ganoderma applanatum on Chestnut This young active conk is in its first year Ganoderma applanatum on Purple leaf plum that is over 100-year-old. This is an old conk that is no longer active. Tests suggested that the decay is reasonably well contained at the site of the conk Phillips Tree Risk Assessment, Renton, WA. By, A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC July 20, 2022 Page 16 of 17 ATTACHMENT 7 - ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. A field examination of the site was made for this report (date referenced in report). Reasonable care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources, however, the certified/consulting arborist cannot guarantee the accuracy or validity of information provided by any outside sources. 2. Information provided in this report covers only tree’s that were indicated for examination in the assignment and reflects the apparent condition of those tree(s) at the time of inspection. This inspection is limited to a visual method of the trees in question, excluding any core sampling, probing, dissection, aerial inspection, or excavation unless noted in writing and is contingent upon the appropriate fee for such services having been authorized in writing. There is no guarantee nor warranty, expressed or implied that any problems with any trees may not arise in the future. 3. All drawings, sketches, and photographs submitted with this report, are intended as visual aids only, and are not exact to scale. They should not be construed as engineering or architectural report or surveys unless noted and specified. 4. The certified/consulting arborist is not required to give any testimony or to attend meetings or dispute resolution proceedings relating this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements and fee agreements are made. 5. Any alterations made to this report automatically invalidates this report. 6.This document is protected by copy right laws©. Unless otherwise required by law, possession of this report or a copy of this report does not imply a right of publication or use for any purpose by anyone other than the person for whom it was created without prior expressed written permission and verbal consent of the certified/consulting arborist. 7. The report and values/opinions expressed, represent the work of the certified/consulting arborist, and the arborist’s fees are in no way contingent upon the reporting of any specified values, stipulated results, or occurrence of a subsequent event. Phillips Tree Risk Assessment, Renton, WA. By, A.B.C. Consulting Arborists LLC July 20, 2022 Page 17 of 17 ATTACHMENT 8 - REFERENCES 1. Arno, Stephen F. and Hammerly, Ramona P. Northwest Trees. Anniversary Ed. Seattle, Washington: The Mountaineer Books, 2007. 2. Brockman, C. Frank, Trees of North America, A Guide to Field Identification. New York: Golden Press, 1979. 3. Dunster, Dr. Julian A., R.P.F., M.C.I.P. Documenting Evidence, Practical Guidance for Arborists, First Choice Books, Victoria, BC, Canada. 2014. 4. Dunster, Dr. Julian A., R.P.F., M.C.I.P. Interpreting Resistograph Readings, A Manual for Users of the Resistograph Decay Detection Instrument. Bowen Island, Canada: Dunster & Associates, 2000. 5. Eric Allen, et al. Common Tree Diseases of British Columbia. Victoria: Canadian Forest Service, 1996. 6. Harris, Richard W, James Clark, and Nelda Matheny. Arboriculture, Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Vines. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2004. 7. Jacobson, Arthur Lee. Trees of Seattle. 2nd ed. Seattle, Washington: Arthur Lee Jacobson, 2006. 8. Johnson, Warren T. and Lyon, Howard H. Insects That Feed on Trees and Shrubs. Ithaca: Comstock Publishing Associates, 1991. 9. Matheny, Nelda P. and Clark, James R. Evaluation of Hazard Trees. 2nd ed. Savoy: The International Society of Arboriculture Press, 1994. 10. Matheny, Nelda P. and Clark, James R. Trees & Development, A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Savoy: The International Society of Arboriculture Press, 1998. 11. Mattheck, Claus and Breloer, Helge. The Body Language of Trees, A Handbook for Failure Analysis. London: HMSO, 1994. 12. Pacific Northwest Chapter-ISA. Tree Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and the Urban/Rural Interface. Course Manual. Release 1.5. PNW-ISA: Silverton, Oregon, 2011. 13. Scharpf, Robert F. Diseases of Pacific Coast Conifers. Albany, California: USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 521, rev. June 1993. 14. Smiley, E. Thomas, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly, Tree Risk Assessment Best Management Practices, ANSI A300 Part 9: Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management—Standard Practices (Tree Risk Assessment a. Tree Structure Assessment). The International Society of Arboriculture Press. Champaign. IL. 2011.