The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRS_Arborist Report_170601_v1Creative Landscape Solutions 702 Nile Ave 1 May 24, 2017 Robert Fitzmaurice, PLS Taylor Development 15 Lake Bellevue Drive – Suite 102 Bellevue, WA 98004 Site: Weston Heights, LLC 702 Nile Ave Renton, WA 98059 TPN: 1123059002 Dear Robert: Thank you for requesting my services. On May 18, 2017, I visited the site located above in Renton, WA to perform a Visual Risk Assessment (VRA) for twenty-two (22) significant trees onsite that had been identified as retained in a buffer on the west side of the site. The information gathered and included in this letter is required by the City of Renton prior to recording the site short plat. In summary:  There are 22 trees identified to be retained on the west side of the site  Three (3) are viable  Nineteen (19) are not viable I have included in this letter a report of my findings. If you have any questions, please call me. I can be reached on my cell phone: 425.890.3808 or by email: sprince202@aol.com. Warm regards, Susan Prince Creative Landscape Solutions ISA Certified Arborist: PN #1418A TRACE Certified Arborist: #418 17518 NE 119th Way Redmond, WA 98052 Creative Landscape Solutions 702 Nile Ave 2 Personal qualifications, scope of work and methodology My examination was limited to a visual one, and did not involve any root excavation, trunk or limb coring, or any soil testing. To evaluate the trees and prepare the report, I drew on my formal college education in botany, preparation and training used to obtain my ISA certification in addition to my certification as a Tree Risk Assessor. I have been an ISA Certified Arborist for over fifteen years and have been TRACE/TRAQ certified for four years. I followed protocol delineated by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for Visual Risk Assessment (VRA). By doing so, I am examining each tree independently as well as collectively as groups or stands of trees provide stability and can lower risk of independent tree failure. This scientific process examines tree health (e.g. size, vigor, insect and disease process) as well as site conditions (soil moisture and composition, quantity of impervious surfaces surrounding the tree etc.) Introduction: Identifying and managing the risks associated with trees is still largely a subjective process. Since the exact nature of tree failures remains largely unknown, our ability as scientists and arborists to predict which trees will fail and in what fashion remains limited. As currently practiced, the science of hazard tree evaluation involves examining a tree for structural defects, including genetic problems, those caused by the local environmental that the tree grows in and those attributed to man (pruning etc.). The assessment process involves evaluating three components: 1) a tree with the potential to fail, 2) an environment that may contribute to that failure, and 3) a person or object that would be injured or damaged (the target). By definition a defective tree cannot be considered hazardous without the presence of a target. All trees have a finite life-span though it is not pre-programmed internally in the same manner as annual plantings. As trees age they are less able to compartmentalize structural damage following injury from insects, disease or pruning. Trees in urban settings have a shorter life span than trees grown in an undisturbed habitat. Different species of trees grow differently. Evergreen trees have a “reputation” of growing slowly and defensively. These trees allocate a high proportion of their resources to defending themselves from pathogens, parasites and wounds. As a rule, trees with this type of growth tend to be long lived. Though like all other living things, they have a fairly predictable life span. Examples of this type of tree include the northwest Pseudotsuga menziesii - Douglas fir, and Thuja plicata - Western red cedar. Deciduous trees are trees that annually shed leaves or needles. These trees have a tendency to grow quickly and try to “outgrow” problems associated with insects, disease and wounds. They allocate a relatively small portion of their internal resources to defense and rely instead upon an ability to grow more quickly than the pathogens which infect them. However, as these trees age, their growth rate declines and the normal problems associated with decay begins to catch up and compromise the tree’s structural integrity. Examples of this type of tree include Salix, Populus and Alnus. Knowledge of the growth and failure patterns of individual tree species is critical to effective hazard analysis. Species vary widely in their rates of failure. The hazard tree evaluation rating system used by most arborists was developed by the Colorado Urban Forest Council and recognizes this variation in species failure and includes a species component as part of the overall hazard evaluation. Creative Landscape Solutions 702 Nile Ave 3 Method’s used to determine tree location and tree health: Trees were identified previously by numbered aluminum tags attached to the western side of the tree. All of the trees on site were examined using the Matheny and Clark1 criteria for determining the potential hazard of trees in an urban environment as well as the Tree Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and The Urban/Rural Interface by Julian Dunster2. Tree diameters were measured at DSH (diameter standard height – 4.5’ above ground) using a logger’s tape. Tree driplines were measured using a PRO Laser RangefinderTM. Spreadsheet Legend: 1. Tree tag #: Numbered aluminum tags attached to the trees in the field 2. Species: The Latin and common name five a tree 3. Species: Species ID: Spreadsheet contains common names of trees which correspond to scientific names as follows:  Apple: Malus sp.  American sycamore: Plantanus occidentalis  Austrian pine: Pinus nigra  Bigleaf maple: Acer macrophyllum  Birch: Betula nigra  Bitter Cherry: Prunus emarginata  Blue atlas cedar: Cedrus atlantica ‘Glauca’  Cedar: Thuja plicata  Cherry: Prunus sp.  Dawn redwood: Chamaecyparis nootkatensis  Deodora cedar: Cedrus deodara  Colorado blue spruce: Picea pungens  Cottonwood: Populus trichocarpa  Dogwood: Cornus nuttallii  Douglas fir: Pseudotsuga menziesii  English laurel: Prunus laurocerasus  Filbert: Corylus avellana var.  Grand fir: Abies grandis  Hemlock: Tsuga hetrophylla  Holly: Ilex aquifolium  Japanese maple: Acer palmatum  Leylandii cypress: Cupressocyparis leylandii  Lodgepole pine: Pinus contorta  Mountain ash: Sorbus americana  Nobel fir: Abies procera  Pear: Pyrus sp.  Plum: Prunus  Red Alder: Alnus rubra  Red maple: Acer rubrum  Walnut: Juglans sp.  Western red cedar: Thuja plicata  Weeping Alaska cedar: Metasequoia glyptostrobides  White fir: Abies concolor  White pine: Pinus strobus 4. DBH: Diameter of the tree measured at 42” above grade 5. Adjusted Diameter of the tree: Calculated equivalent for multi-stemmed tree 6. Dripline Radius: Measurement in feet of the tree canopy from tree trunk to outermost branch tip 7. Windfirm: Whether or not the tree remains stable if surrounding trees are removed, or if the root/soil interface isn’t strong enough to withstand wind 8. Health: A measurement of overall tree vigor and vitality rated as excellent, good, and fair or poor based on an assessment of crown density, leaf color and size, active callusing, shoot growth rate, extent of crown dieback, cambium layer health, and tree age  Excellent: Tree is an ideal specimen for the species with no obvious flaws  Good: Tree has minimal structural or situational defects  OK: Tree has minimal structural defects AND minimal environmental concerns  Fair: Tree has structural or health issues that predispose it to failure if further stressed  Poor: Tree has significant structural and/or health issues. It is exempt from total tree count. 9. Defects/Concerns: A measure of the tree’s structural stability and failure potential and rated as good, fair or poor based on assessment of specific structural features, eg., decay, conks, co-dominant trunks, included bark, abnormal lean, one-sided canopy, history of failure, prior construction impact, pruning history, etc.. 10. Proposed action:  Retain Creative Landscape Solutions 702 Nile Ave 4  Remove due to viability  Remove due to planned development (tree is otherwise healthy) 11. Limits of disturbance: The area surrounding the tree that defines the area that surrounds the trunk that cannot be encroached upon during construction. This may be a multiple of the trunk diameter (1 -1.5 times the trunk diameter converted to feet.) or it may be related to the width of the canopy. It is always determined by tree species and environment and is up to the discretion of the ISA Certified Arborist to determine. Creative Landscape Solutions702 Nile Ave5 Specific Tree Observations: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip-line radius feet Wind-firm OK in Grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Retain Remove Radius in feet Viable Non- viable Remove N W E S 1 933 Red alder 13 13 18 N Y Poor Lean 10% to east, previous large scaffold failure @ 25', cavity @ 25' on south, typical of species, carpenter ants, woodpecker activity 1 18 18 18 18 2 934 Red alder 13 13 19 Y Y OK Moss and lichen, asymmetric canopy to west, previous top loss, typical of species 1 19 19 19 19 3 935 Red alder 13 13 19 N Y Fair Lean > 25% to east, self-corrected lean, moss and lichen, dead wood, typical of species 1 19 19 19 19 4 936 Red alder 8 8 17 N Y Poor Lean > 30% to east, moss and lichen, dead scaffold, dead wood, broken branches, asymmetric canopy to east, previous large scaffold failure on south 1 17 17 17 17 Creative Landscape Solutions702 Nile Ave6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip-line radius feet Wind-firm OK in Grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Retain Remove Radius in feet Viable Non- viable Remove N W E S 5 937 Red alder 13 13 16 N Y Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 reduced to 1 @ root crown, one trunk dead, asymmetric canopy to west, moss and lichen, previous top loss 1 16 16 16 16 6 938 Red alder 10 10 20 N Y Fair/ OK Lean to east, hanger, previous top loss @ 30', typical of species, dead wood, broken branches 1 20 20 20 20 7 939 Red alder 15 15 14 N Y Fair Self-corrected lean to east, previous top loss, moss and lichen, decay @ root crown 1 14 14 14 14 8 940 Red alder 10 10 16 Y Y Fair Previous top loss, asymmetric canopy to northwest, typical of species 1 16 16 16 16 9 941 Red alder 11, 10 15 18 Y Y Fair/ OK Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ root crown, exposed roots, asymmetric canopy to north, lean > 30% to north, large cavity @ 18' to 20' on north, wound @ 3' on east, typical of species 1 18 18 18 18 Creative Landscape Solutions702 Nile Ave7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip-line radius feet Wind-firm OK in Grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Retain Remove Radius in feet Viable Non- viable Remove N W E S 10 942 Bitter cherry 12 12 15 Y Y Fair Dead wood, broken branches, dead top, previous top loss 1 15 15 15 15 11 943 Red alder 18 18 13 N Y Poor Taps hollow, dead wood, dead scaffold, previous top loss, mostly dead 1 13 13 13 13 12 944 Red alder 7, 2 7.5 9 N Y Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ root crown, moss and lichen, exposed roots, decay throughout, lean west > 15% 1 9 9 9 9 13 945 Red alder 9 9 13 N Y Poor Previous top loss, hanger, moss and lichen, dead wood, dead scaffold 1 13 13 13 13 14 946 Apple 9, 13 16 19 N N/A Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ root crown, large cavity of decay @ 3' on north, poor pruning with decay, moss and lichen, carpenter ants, woodpecker activity, typical of species, dead wood 1 19 19 19 19 Creative Landscape Solutions702 Nile Ave8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip-line radius feet Wind-firm OK in Grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Retain Remove Radius in feet Viable Non- viable Remove N W E S 15 947 Apple 10, 7 12 14 N N/A Fair Cavity @ 6' up to 9' on north, column of decay 3' up to 6' on south, co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 3', moss and lichen, dead wood, typical of species 1 14 14 14 14 16 948 Apple 8, 9 12 14 N N/A Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 3', poor pruning with decay, moss and lichen, dead wood, carpenter ants, woodpecker activity, column of decay @ 5' on east 1 14 14 14 14 17 949 Apple 7, 8, 7 12.5 14 N N/A Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x3 @ 4', poor pruning with decay, dead wood, dead scaffold, moss and lichen 1 14 14 14 14 18 950 Apple 29 29 14 N N/A Fair Co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 5', cavity 5' to 8' on west, poor pruning with decay, carpenter ants, woodpecker activity, dead scaffold, dead wood, lean to north > 10% 1 14 14 14 14 Creative Landscape Solutions702 Nile Ave9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 # Tree Tag # Species ID DBH inches Adj. DBH inches Drip-line radius feet Wind-firm OK in Grove Health Defects/Comments Proposed Action CRZ/TPZ/LOD Retain Remove Radius in feet Viable Non- viable Remove N W E S 19 951 Apple 23 23 14 N N/A Poor Large pockets of decay, mostly dead 1 14 14 14 14 20 952 Apple 16, 12 20 18 N N/A Poor Co-dominant leaders with included bark @ 3', previous scaffold failure 3' on west, cavity @ 3' up to 10' on north, carpenter ants, woodpecker activity, dead scaffold 1 18 18 18 18 21 953 Apple 18 18 16 N N/A Poor Large cavity @ root crown to 10' on northwest, carpenter ants, woodpecker activity, poor pruning with decay 1 16 16 16 16 22 954 Cherry 9, 3 9.5 10 N N/A Fair Taps hollow, co-dominant leaders with included bark x2 @ 3', poor pruning with decay, woodpecker activity, self-corrected lean, wound @ 5' up to 7' on south, dead wood, dead twigs 1 10 10 10 10 319 Creative Landscape Solutions 702 Nile Ave 10 Site map (See also architect or civil plans): Photos: Typical of all site Red alders: Apple trees Red alder trees Red Alders—1/2 of tree failed Grove of Red alders with top and tip die back Creative Landscape Solutions 702 Nile Ave 11 Typical of onsite Apple trees: Discussion: Nineteen of the twenty-two trees examined were assessed as being in “fair” or “poor” condition. None were damaged by recent site development. All were typical of their species given their age and soil conditions. If the trees are to be retained long term they should be fenced to keep the public from Four of the site fruit trees, all with severe decay Creative Landscape Solutions 702 Nile Ave 12 walking under them. Long term (greater than ten (10) years, few of the trees will be standing; in the case of the red alders, new trees will grow to replace the failed older ones. Creative Landscape Solutions 702 Nile Ave 13 Tree Protection Fencing: Tree Protection fencing should be erected prior to any site grading First, protect roots that lie in the path of construction. Approximately 90 to 95 percent of a tree's root system is in the top three feet of soil, and more than half is in the top one foot. Construction activities should be avoided in this area. Protect as much of the area beyond the tree's dripline as possible. Some healthy trees survive after losing half of their roots. However, other species are extremely sensitive to root damage even outside the dripline. Do not disturb the Critical Root Zone (CRZ). The CRZ is defined by its "critical root radius." It is more accurate than the dripline for determining the CRZ of trees growing in forests or that have narrow growth habits. To calculate critical root radius, measure the tree's diameter (DBH) in inches, 4.5 feet above the ground. For each inch, allow for 1 to 1.5 feet of critical root radius. If a tree's DBH is ten inches, its critical root radius is 10 to 15 feet. In addition to the CRZ, it is important to determine the Limits of Disturbance (LOD) for preserved trees. Generally, this is approximating the CRZ however in previously excavated areas around the dripline the LOD may be smaller, or in the case of a tree situated on a slope the LOD may be larger. The determination of LOD is also subject to the particular tree species. Some tree species do better than others after root disturbance. Tree protection is advised throughout the duration of any construction activities whenever the critical root zone or leaf canopy many be encroached upon by such activities. The Critical Root Zone (CRZ) or LOD should be protected with fencing adequate to hinder access to people vehicles and equipment. Fencing detail is provided. It should consist of continuous 4 ft. high temporary chain-link fencing with posts sec at 10’ on center or polyethylene laminar safety fencing or similar. The fencing must contain fencing signage detailing that the tree protection area cannot be trespassed on. Soil compaction is one of the most common killers of urban trees. Stockpiled materials, heavy machinery and excessive foot traffic damage soil structure and reduce soil pore space. The effected tree roots suffocate. When construction takes place close to the protected CRZ, cover the site with 4 inches of bark to reduce soil compaction Tree Protection fencing must be erected prior to soil excavation, boring, grading or fill operations. It is erected at the LOD. If it is necessary to run utilities within the LOD, the utilities should be combined into one cut, as practical. Trenching is not allowed in the LOD. In these areas boring or tunneling techniques should be used. In the event that roots greater than 1” diameter near the LOD are damaged or torn, it is necessary to hand trim them to a clean cut. Any roots that are exposed during construction should be covered with soil as soon as possible. During drought conditions, trees must be adequately watered. Site should be visited regularly by a qualified ISA Certified Arborist to ensure the health of the trees. Tree protection fencing is the last item to be removed from the site after construction is completed. After construction has been completed, evaluate the remaining trees. Look for signs and symptoms of damage or stress. It may take several years for severe problems to appear. In the event that fencing around portions of the CRZ of a tree to be retained are not practical to erect due to construction or obstacles, tree protection fencing should be placed three feet laterally from the obstruction (ex. three feet back of a curb, building, or other existing or planned permanent infrastructure. Creative Landscape Solutions 702 Nile Ave 14 Glossary: ANSI A300: American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards for tree care Chlorotic: discoloration caused by lack of chlorophyll in the foliage Conifer: A tree that bears cones and has evergreen needles or scales Crown: the above ground portion of the tree comprised of branches and their foliage Crown raise pruning: a pruning technique where the lower branches are removed, thus raising the overall height of the crown from the ground DBH or DSH: diameter at breast or standard height; the diameter of the trunk measured 54 inches (4.5 feet) above grade Deciduous: tree or other plant that loses its leaves annually and remains leafless generally during the cold season Epicormic: arising from latent or adventitious buds Evergreen: tree or plant that keeps its needles or leaves throughout the year; this means for more than one growing season Increment: the amount of new wood fiber added to a tree in a given period, normally one year. ISA: International Society of Arboriculture Landscape function: the environmental, aesthetic, or architectural functions that a plant can have Lateral: secondary or subordinate branch Limits of disturbance: The boundary of minimum protection around a tree, the area that cannot be encroached upon without possible permanent damage to the tree. It is a distance determined by a qualified professional and is based on the age of the tree, its health, the tree species tolerance to disruption and the type of disturbance. It also considers soil and environmental condition and previous impacts. It is unique to each tree in its location. Limited visual assessment: a visual assessment from a specified perspective such as foot, vehicle, or aerial (airborne) patrol of an individual tree or a population of trees near specified targets to identify specified conditions or obvious defects (ISA 2013) Live crown ratio: the percentage of living tissue in the canopy versus the tree’s height. It is a good indicator of overall tree health and the trees growing conditions. Trees with less than a 30% Crown ratio often lack the necessary quantity of photosynthetic material necessary to sustain the roots; consequently, the tree may exhibit low vigor and poor health. Monitoring: keeping a close watch; performing regular checks or inspections Creative Landscape Solutions 702 Nile Ave 15 Owner/manager: the person or entity responsible for tree management or the controlling authority that regulates tree management Pathogen: causal agent of disease Phototropic growth: growth toward light source or stimulant ROW: Right-of-way; generally referring to a tree that is located offsite on a city easement Reaction wood: Specialized secondary xylem which develops in response to a lean or similar mechanical stress, it serves to help restore the stem to a vertical position Self-corrected lean: a tree whose trunk is at an angle to the grade but whose trunk and canopy changes to become upright/vertical Significant tree: a tree measuring a specific diameter determined by the municipality the tree grows in. Some municipalities deem that only healthy trees can be significant, other municipalities consider both healthy and unhealthy trees of a determined diameter to be significant Snag: a tree left partially standing for the primary purpose of providing habitat for wildlife Soil structure: the size of particles and their arrangement; considers the soil, water, and air space Sounding: process of striking a tree with a mallet or other appropriate tool and listening for tones that indicate dead bark, a thin layer of wood outside a cavity, or cracks in wood Structural defects: flaws, decay, or other faults in the trunk, branches, or root collar of a tree, which may lead to failure; may be genetic, or environmental Tree credit: A number assigned to a tree by a municipality that may be equal to the diameter of the tree or a numerical count of the tree, or related to diameter by a factor conveyed in a table of the municipal code Trunk area: the cross-sectional area of the trunk based upon measurement at 54 inches (4.5 ft.) above grade Visual Tree Assessment (VTA): method of evaluating structural defects and stability in trees by noting the pattern of growth. Developed by Claus Mattheck (Harris, et al 1999) detailed visual inspection of a tree and surrounding site that may include the use of simple tools. It requires that a tree risk assessor walk completely around the tree trunk looking at the site, aboveground roots, trunk, and branches (ISA 2013) Creative Landscape Solutions 702 Nile Ave 16 References Dirr, Michael A. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants, Their Identification, Ornamental Characteristics, Culture, Propagation, and Uses. Champaign: Stipes Publishing Company, 1990. Dunster & Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. Assessing Trees in Urban Areas and the Urban-Rural Interface. US Release 1.0. Silverton: Pacific Northwest Chapter ISA, 2006. Dunster, J. A. 2003. Preliminary Species Profiles for Tree Failure Assessment. Bowen Island: Dunster & Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. Dunster, Julian A., E. Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny and Sharon Lilly. Tree Risk Assessment Manual. Champaign, Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture, 2013. 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. Lilly, Sharon. Arborists’ Certification Study Guide. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 2001. Matheny, Nelda and Clark, James R. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. Second Edition. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 1994. Matheny, Nelda and Clark, James R. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. Champaign, IL: The International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. Mattheck, Claus and Breloer, Helge. The Body Language of Trees: A Handbook for Failure Analysis. London: HMSO, 1994 Schwarze, Francis W.M.R. Diagnosis and Prognosis of the Development of Wood Decay in Urban Trees. Australia: ENSPEC Pty Ltd. 2008 Sinclair, Wayne A., Lyon, Howard H., and Johnson, Warren T. Diseases of Trees and Shrubs. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1987. 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: Tree Structure Assessment). The International Society of Arboriculture Press. Champaign. IL. 2011. Thies, Walter G. and Sturrock, Rona N. Laminated root rot in Western North American. United States Department of Agriculture. Pacific Northwest. Resource Bulletin PNW- GTR-349. April 1995. Creative Landscape Solutions 702 Nile Ave 17 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as thou free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. 2. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or other governmental regulations. 3. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 4. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of the report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. 5. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 6. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser. 7. Neither all nor any part of the contents of the report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser – particularly as to value conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or instate or to any initialed designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in her qualification. 8. The report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant’s/appraiser’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. 9. Sketches, diagrams, graphs and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aid, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or survey. 10. Unless expressed otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and 2: the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing or coring. There is not warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future.