CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
MEMORANDUM
April 3, 2023
TO: City Council
FROM: Office of the City Manager
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CONSULTING ARBORIST’S EVALUATION OF
EUCALYPTUS TREES ON SINALOA ROAD AND REQUEST FOR
DIRECTION
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider the Consulting Arborist’s evaluation of the Eucalyptus trees on Sinaloa Road and provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
During the October 24, 2022, City Council meeting, staff requested authorization to remove the Eucalyptus trees on Sinaloa Road as a result of an evaluation completed by a Certified Arborist in March 2022, and approve the contract for work.
The evaluation prepared by the A rborist in March 2022 indicated that most of the 63 eucalyptus trees were infested with leaf eating insects and all of the trees had root ball conditions which could cause them to fail. As a result , the Certified Arborist who prepared the report recommended that all the trees be removed. The City’s in-house Certified A rborist concurred with the recommendation and City Council authorized the work to proceed. During the November 7, 2022, City Council meeting, members of the community expressed concerns about the need to remove all of th e trees. T he City Council requested staff to obtain an additional evaluation of the health of the Eucalyptus trees by another Arborist prior to any of the trees being removed. The results of the evaluation are presented in this report for the City Council’s consideration.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
City Manager’s Office s taff contacted multiple arborists and identified Jan Scow Consulting Arborists LLC as qualified to conduct the assessment. Mr. Scow is a Registered Consulting Arborist (RCA), a designation provided by the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA). To achieve the designation of RCA , candidates must have additional years of experience, complete an intensive training program, and produce professionally reviewed reports, requirements that can be considered more stringent than those required for becoming a Certified Arborist. Mr. Scow’s team (Consultant) included a second Consulting Arborist, Ms. Alison Lancaster, whose website describes that she wants to “protect LA’s urban and wildland trees….”
AGENDA ITEM NO.
8D
2 The Consultants’ evaluation (Exhibit 1, page 4 ) of the Eucalyptus trees was conducted over three days between December 7 and December 9, 2022. The majority of trees evaluated were blue gum Eucalyptus trees. There were also 11 lem on gum trees. Trees were visually inspected, a n evaluation of potential targets was completed, and a risk assessment completed. The Visual Inspection included:
1) Examination of the soil around the base of the tree for any evidence of decay organisms or root damage;
2) Examination of the root crown of each tree, including clearing away any debris and loose bark so the root crown can be carefully inspected for decay or defects; 3) Visual inspection of the trunk of each tree for evidence of decay or defects; and 4) Inspection of the canopy of each tree, including major limbs and limb attachments, growth that is extending outside or beyond the main canopy, as well as looking for evidence of topping cuts and other structural defects.
Following the Consultant’s evaluation of the trees on Sinaloa, they noted 44 blue gum Eucalyptus trees and that the previous report incorrectly identified 11 trees as blue gums that are actually lemon gums. The Consultant’s report indicates there is no justification for removing any of the lemon gum trees. However, according to the consultant, blue gum Eucalyptus trees have a reputation for failure.
The Consultant recommended the immediate removal of 13 Eucalyptus trees for reasons ranging from presence of sulfur conk, to leaning, to damage to the root crown. These conditions put the trees at risk of whole tree, trunk, or large limb failure. Sulfur conk is a pathogenic fungus which can cause root and butt rot and heart rot. This type of rot can make the tree susceptible to wind throw from root or crown failure, meaning that the wind can uproot and overthrow the tree.
The Consultant ’s final recommendation was “Species Replacement” which stated “Finally, it would seem prudent to create a plan to remove the remaining blue gums gradually over time and replant more appropriate tree species as these large Eucalyptus trees are removed.” While the Consultant did not provide a timeline in the recommendation, staff followed up by email and requested a reasonable timeframe in which the City should rem ove the remaining blue gum Eucalyptus trees; the Consultant indicated that within a three to five year period would be reasonable. The report provided a number of recommendations to maintain the health of the trees u ntil tree removal can be completed.
Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council consider the results of the Consultant’s evaluation of the Eucalyptus trees on Sinaloa Road and provide direction to staff.
The following alternatives are available to the City Council:
1. Provide direction to staff regarding the results of the Consulting Arborist’s evaluation of the Eucalyptus Trees on Sinaloa Road;
2. Provide staff with further direction.
Staff has no recommendation.
3 SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL MOTION
There is no recommended motion.
SUMMARY
During the October 24, 2022, City Council meeting, staff requested authorization to remove the Eucalyptus trees on Sinaloa Road as a result of an evaluation completed by a Certified Arborist in March 2022, and approve the contract for work. The evaluation prepared by the Arborist in March 2022 indicated that most of the 63 eucalyptus trees were infested with leaf eating insects and all of the trees had root ball conditions which could cause them to fail. As a result, the Certified Arborist who prepared the report recommended that al l the trees be removed. The City’s in- house Certified Arborist concurred with the recommendation and City Council authorized the work to proceed.
During the November 7, 2022, City Council meeting, members of the community expressed concerns about the nee d to remove all of the trees. The City Council requested staff to obtain an additional evaluation of the health of the Eucalyptus trees by another Arborist prior to any of the trees being removed. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council consider the results of the Consultant’s evaluation of the Eucalyptus trees on Sinaloa Road and provide direction to staff.
____________________________________
Samantha Argabrite
Assistant City Manager
Prepared by: Samantha Argabrite, Assistant City Manager
INDEX Page
Exhibit 1 – Eucalyptus Risk Assessment .......................................... 4 Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC
Disease and Pest Diagnosis, Hazard Evaluation, Restorative Pruning Advice, Value Assessment
401 N. Ventura St.
Ojai, CA 93023
(805) 272-8095
12/18/22
Samantha Argabrite
City of Simi Valley
2929 Tapo Cyn. Rd.
Simi Valley, CA 93063
SUBJECT: Sinaloa Rd. Eucalypt Risk Assessment
REFERENCES:
1) Eucalyptus Report, 3/23/22, Sean McCormick (Stay Green Inc.) 2) Email dated 11/8/22 at 12:00 PM (online form), Argabrite 3) Proposal (risk assessment), 11/14/22, Scow
4) Personal communication, 12/7/22, Argabrite
5) Personal communication, unnamed resident, 12/8/22
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An evaluation of the the Eucalyptus trees along Sinaloa Rd. between Royal Ave. and Laguna Dr., done in March 2022, came to the conclusion that all trees should be removed. The reason stated was that the “area is prone to tree failure”.
After a careful evaluation of all of these trees (some have already been removed) we have recommended the removal of several additional trees, a more in-depth examination of some, and the continued maintenance and monitoring of all remaining trees. It should be noted that there are no guarantees that any tree will not fail, and the only way to be certain a tree will not fail is to remove it.
Ultimately the City must decide how these trees will be addressed and weigh their value against their perceived risk of failure. If the trees remain, it is imperative that all recommendations at the end of this report be followed carefully.
BACKGROUND
We agreed to evaluate the Eucalyptus trees along a section of Sinaloa Rd. for failure risk. The City approved a level 2 risk assessment 1 of 63 trees between
Royal Ave. and Laguna Dr. It was reported (ref. 4 & 5) that there have been failures among these trees and, based on previous input, that the City was considering removing all the trees. We were asked to provide a second opinion.
1 Bold italicized words are defined in the glossary at the end of this report. 4 EXHIBIT 1
Sinaloa Rd. 12/18/22
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 2 of 12
We spent three days on site evaluating the trees between 12/7/22 and 12/9/22.
Our findings follow.
ASSIGNMENT
Our assignment was to tag and assess risk of failure of each qualifying tree (eucalypts 12” in trunk diameter or greater) along this stretch of Sinaloa Rd. A level 2 risk assessment was chosen by the City. This type of assessment requires that the arborist walk completely around each tree looking at the site and all visible parts of the buttress roots, root crown, trunk, limbs and branches from the ground. Detailed evaluation of any (possibly several) potential failures is carried out as deemed necessary by the arborist, and appropriate specific recommendations are made (refer to ref. 3 for additional detail).
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
Findings Summary
The formal risk assessment is in the attached Excel spreadsheet. Here is a brief summary of what we found.
1) The trees of concern are large blue gum trees, although there are also lemon gum trees which are not concerning.
2) The blue gums have been pruned frequently, which has reduced the likelihood of large limb failures.
3) The trees are generally in good health.
4) There is Laetiporus gilbertsonii (sulfur conk) observed in some locations. It is a pathogenic fungus that can cause decay and increase the likelihood of failures in Eucalyptus trees.
5) There are various targets to the west (private property) and to the east (public property).
6) Potential failures were observed in many trees, but few appear to be serious. See also “Discussion” and “Recommendations” below.
Site Description: Sinaloa Rd. runs north and south. The section we worked in is ½ mile long between Royal Ave. and Laguna Rd. All of the trees we assessed are on the west side of Sinaloa.
We were told by a local resident (ref. 5) that the city/county line runs just west of the trees, implying that the private property to the west is in unincorporated Ventura County. The trees are located between the edge of Sinaloa and various fences and walls that define the private property lines to the west. The properties to the west are all large residential lots with homes (most are at the western edge of the lots) and large back yards. These private lots have fences or block walls along their east property lines and various other structures and vehicles in their back yards between the trees and the homes.
East of the trees is Sinaloa Rd. in close proximity. Across Sinaloa Rd. are utility poles and utility lines, including high voltage lines. Traffic along Sinaloa was fast- moving generally and varied from very light to moderate traffic. There was no 5 Sinaloa Rd. 12/18/22
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 3 of 12
backup of traffic near the trees during our time on site. There are bike lanes on both sides of Sinaloa and a sidewalk on the east side of the street but we noted very little use of either of these during our time there (perhaps 20 or so observations of bikes or pedestrians over the entire three-day period).
Target evaluation: An important component of tree failure risk assessment is considering what might be within the fall zone of any potential failure. Potential targets we considered include the following:
1) Vehicles travelling through the area on Sinaloa Rd. east of the trees 2) High voltage lines on the east side of Sinaloa Rd.
3) Sinaloa Rd. itself (considering possible traffic obstruction) 4) People in back yards of private property to west
5) Homes or potentially occupied structures on private property to the west 6) Other structures or amenities on private property to the west 7) Vehicles, including cars, RVs, boats in back yards on private property
Tree information: Our scope of work was limited to Eucalyptus trees2 at least 12” in trunk diameter. We evaluated a total of 55 trees within the project area. There were also several stumps of recently removed large Eucalyptus, as well as a few small Corymbia trees that did not qualify due to their size. These items probably account for the difference in total trees evaluated (55 vs. 63 trees).
Most of the trees were large blue gums (Eucalyptus globulus) with a few (11) lemon gum trees (Corymbia citriodora)
3 as well. The blue gums were generally
quite tall, some probably reaching 80 feet. Many appeared to have been topped years ago and regrown from those old topping cuts. Most of the trees were in good health and it was clear that they were being pruned on a fairly regular basis to contain the canopies by reducing limb extension and overhang. Lemon gums require very little pruning and most of these were in their essentially “natural” condition.
PROCEDURES
Tagging and Mapping: Trees were all tagged on the north side of the trunk at about six feet above grade with consecutively numbered aluminum tags from 1401 through 1455, beginning at the north end of the site and proceeding to the south end. The trees were identified within six areas, numbered 1-6 from north to south. The database lists tree tag number and mapping area for each tree for ease of location. Maps showing these six areas are attached.
Tree inspections: Each tree was visually inspected as follows:
1) Examined the soil around the base of the tree for any evidence of decay organisms or root damage.
2 Lemon gum trees, once considered to be in the genus Eucalyptus have been changed to genus the Corymbia. We included all qualifying Corymbia trees regardless of this change in classification. 3 The lemon gums were misidentified as blue gums in the previous reporting (ref. 1). 6 Sinaloa Rd. 12/18/22
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 4 of 12
2) Examined the root crown of each tree. This includes clearing away debris and loose bark so that the root crown can be carefully inspected for decay or defects.
3) Visually inspected the trunk of each tree for evidence of decay or defects. 4) Inspected the canopy of each tree, including major limbs and limb attachments, growth that is extending outside or beyond the main canopy, as well as looking for evidence of topping cuts and other structural defects.
Target identification: Target areas were evaluated as follows:
1) To the east we looked at the height of the tree in relation to high voltage lines to see if we thought a whole tree failure would be likely to reach the high voltage lines across the street.
2) To the west we looked into each private yard to establish what targets might be impacted by various failures.
Risk assessment: This is a process where we evaluate the various possibilities of some failure occurring and the potential results of that failure, to arrive at an assessment of the risk of a damaging failure occurring. In most cases we considered that a blue gum could experience a whole tree failure to either the east or the west. We also looked for evidence of decay organisms that could increase the likelihood of whole tree failure or limb failure. Then we noted limbs or trunks that we felt could fail and impact a target.
In all cases we assigned a likelihood of failure to each condition, a likelihood that the failure would impact a specified target, and what the consequences of said impact might be. The combination of each of these factors results in a risk rating. These risk ratings range from low to medium or high.
Finally, we made recommendations based upon our findings. These recommendations range from additional evaluation (level 3 assessment) to corrective pruning, continuance of regular maintenance pruning or, in several cases, tree removal.
DISCUSSION
There are several things to consider when deciding the outcome of the risk assessment of these trees:
Risk- The most concerning risk issue here, whole tree failure, is also the most difficult to predict. Risk from limb failures is generally a lesser concern and can be managed by careful pruning.
Species reputation- Blue gums have a reputation for failures. Whether that reputation is deserved or not, the perception exists and understandably may influence decision making.
7 Sinaloa Rd. 12/18/22
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 5 of 12
Previous recommendation- The fact that another arborist suggested removing all these trees is a factor that will also influence decision making. The only way to be 100% sure that a tree won’t cause harm is to remove it. Ultimately the City will have to consider both reports and decide what will be done. I have suggested several removals, but not all trees.
History of failure- The fact that there have been past failures is likely the main reason for concern. While past failures do not have any effect on the probability of future failures, they will still influence decision making.
Presence of sulfur conk- The presence of this pathogenic fungus is a concern. I have recommended removal of any tree that has sulfur conk on or near it in an abundance of caution, as well as periodic monitoring to locate any additional areas where it may be present. This fungus can cause root and butt rot, as well as heart rot.
Targets- The most significant risk to the east is that a whole tree failure takes out the high voltage lines across the street causing risk of fire, power outages, electrocution, etc. Those high voltage lines lines are always there and, aside from a few homes, are the only significant “always present target”. The other consideration is street closure due to a whole tree failure, but this is much less important as it appears traffic could easily be rerouted. The possibility of a falling tree or limb hitting a passing car, a person walking, biking, or in a private yard is remote, although the consequences might be severe.
To the west, the targets include homes and structures, although there are a few exceptions, it appears that most homes and occupied structures are not near enough to be significantly damaged. There are various other structures which are probably not occupied, vehicles, and probably the occasional person in these back yards, but either the likelihood of impact (people) or the low consequences of impact make these targets a lesser risk.
Weather- Ms. Agrabrite stated that it is often windy here. A local resident (ref. 5) stated that the winds are from the east, as did the previous arborist (ref. 1). If accurate, that would tend to indicate that failures during high wind events might be mostly onto private property. We cannot predict what will happen in extreme weather events, and this assessment cannot address every weather-related possibility.
Time frame- We have based our assessment on a three-year window, trying to predict the likelihood of failure within that time frame. Beyond that time frame, it is felt that our assessment would no longer be reliable.
Pruning cycle and tree maintenance- It appears that these trees are regularly pruned. This is excellent and has greatly reduced the risk of large limb failures often associated with blue gums.
8 Sinaloa Rd. 12/18/22
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 6 of 12
RECOMMENDATIONS
Decide a course of action- The below recommendations are obviously moot if the City chooses to remove all the 44 blue gum trees4. We cannot make that decision but hopefully have provided the City with adequate information upon which to base their decision. Should the City decide to allow some or all of these trees to remain, we would suggest the following actions.
Contractor(s) instructions- If the City chooses to carry out our recommendations, the contractor(s) should be able to do all of the work by following the printed instructions in the “Narrative” tab of the database. Work is prioritized in the first column with “1” being the highest priority to be done first.
Tree removals- I have recommended the removal of 13 trees for various reasons. This should be done expeditiously as any of these trees could be at risk of whole tree, trunk, or large limb failure.
Monitor for sulfur conk- In early to mid fall sulfur conk is highly visible, showing up as a bright yellow conk on or near the trees. It would be wise of the City to inspect these trees at this time of year annually to see if there is any activity present. Safety would dictate that any tree with sulfur conk on or near it be further evaluated and/or considered for removal.
Remedial pruning- We have suggested some pruning work that should be done on several trees to reduce the risk of limb or branch failure5. This work is not urgent and could possibly be done as part of the regular pruning cycle. Trees 1407, 1412, 1422, 1423, & 1424 should be pruned in the first cycle as they have some concerns that need to be addressed sooner.
Continue biannual maintenance pruning- In order to keep limbs from becoming overly long and potentially a failure risk, the City should do maintenance pruning on all of the remaining blue gums every two years. This is especially important given that many of these trees have been topped in the past.
When pruning is being done an aerial inspection of the entire canopy should always be carried out during that process.
Remove irrigation- Irrigation in the area where trees 1401-1403 are located should be completely disabled. Watering under these trees is ill-advised as it creates an environment that favors root disease.
Remove vegetation- Plants growing around the base of tree 1401 & 1403 should be removed and kept at least 2’ from the root crown of each tree.
4 Ironically, not only have some trees been removed, which lowered the total count, but also the previous arborist’s report misidentified 11 trees as blue gums that are actually lemon gums. These trees have no important issues and there would be no justification for removing any of them. 5 Note that we called everything on these trees a “limb” and did not use branch terminology. In reality, by definition, most of what we noted were potential branch failures (see glossary). 9 Sinaloa Rd. 12/18/22
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 7 of 12
Root crown excavations- We have recommended that several trees (16) have their root crowns excavated to inspect roots near the trunk. On several of these it is only suggested that the area between the trunk and block wall to the west be excavated to determine if the construction of the wall has damaged significant roots.
Aerial inspections- In four cases we have recommended that level 3 aerial inspections be carried out to see if there are any concerns in the upper canopy where topping may have occurred or where vegetation was too dense to visually evaluate the upper structure.
Species replacement- Finally, it would seem prudent to create a plan to remove the remaining blue gums gradually over time and replant more appropriate tree species as these large Eucalyptus trees are removed. Lemon gums would be a good choice as there are already many of these on site and they do not have the inherent issues that blue gums do. Another possibility would be Brisbane box (Lophostemon confertus) which are also present on the site.
ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist's services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, landlord-tenant matters, etc. Arborists cannot take such issues into account unless complete and accurate information is given to the arborist. The person hiring the arborist accepts full responsibility for authorizing the recommended treatment or remedial measures.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near a tree is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risks is to eliminate all trees.
Please note the following important considerations:
• You should never authorize or do any work on any tree unless you are certain of that tree’s ownership, and you have confirmed that you solely 10 Sinaloa Rd. 12/18/22
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 8 of 12
own the tree, or that anyone else having a claim to the tree has given you permission in writing authorizing your proposed action. • Before removing a tree, be sure it is your tree to remove. • Trees on property lines belong to both properties.
• Working on trees hanging into or over your yard that belong to a neighbor may result in “unreasonable damage” to their tree and could expose you to litigation.
Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance or if you have any additional questions. My goal is to satisfy my clients and help them to better care for their trees in the most effective way possible. I look forward to working with you toward that goal!
Sincerely,
Jan C. Scow
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #382
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist #WE-1972B
Attached:
1) Glossary
2) Area location maps (2)
3) Database overview
4) Database (sent via separate email)
11 Sinaloa Rd. 12/18/22
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 9 of 12
GLOSSARY
Branch- A shoot or stem arising from a larger and older stem. A subordinate stem.
Butt rot- Decay of the lower trunk, trunk flare, or buttress roots.
Fall zone- The area in which a predicted failure would impact targets below.
Laetiporus gilbertsonii (sulfur conk)- A brown rot fungus that can cause butt rot as well as decay on heartwood, roots. Often associated with pruning wounds. This fungus can decay the lower 16’ of the trunk and extend below ground to cause failure at the soil line.
Level 2 assessment- Basic assessments are the standard assessment performed by arborists in response to most private client requests for tree risk assessments. It requires that the arborist walk completely around to tree looking at the site and all visible parts of the buttress roots, root crown, trunk, limbs and branches. Detailed evaluation of any (possibly several) potential failures is carried out as deemed necessary by the arborist and appropriate specific recommendations are made.
Level 3 assessment- Advanced assessments are performed to provide detailed information about specific tree parts, defects, targets, or site conditions. This level of detail is often recommended in specific situations following a lower-level inspection and may include aerial (climbing) inspections, decay testing, root crown excavation, etc.
Specialized equipment and expertise is usually required, and costs may be substantial.
Likelihood of failure- How likely any given failure mode is judged to occur. This is a highly subjective judgement based on experience.
Limb- A branch that is among the largest on a tree.
Risk rating- A final rating of failure risk which considers likelihood of failure, likelihood of impacting a given target, and consequences of that impact, based on the TRAQ methodology. Risk ratings are categorized as low, moderate, high, or extreme.
Root crown- Area where the main roots join the trunk. Typically, this area should be visible as an enlarging of the base of the trunk as it enters the ground.
Target- That “item” that could be present under a potential failure. Usually includes people and/or property. Without a potential target there is no risk.
Topping cuts- An inappropriate method of reducing size of a tree that entails making random large internodal cuts on mature, developed stems. Destroys tree architecture and results in weak attachment of regrowth, introduction of decay into cuts, multiple attachments, and poor structure.
Whole tree failure- Can be one of three general types: 1) soil failure generally associated with saturated or very loose soil, 2) root failure, where the roots actually break, or 3) trunk failure where the trunk breaks.
12 Sinaloa Rd. 12/18/22
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 10 of 12
Areas 1-3
13 Sinaloa Rd. 12/18/22
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 11 of 12
Areas 4-6
14 Sinaloa Rd. 12/18/22
Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 12 of 12
Database Overview6
Data Tab
Column Caption Description
A # Numerical sequence allowing the data to be sorted
and returned to its original layout
B Tree # Number of aluminum tag on N side of each tree
C Species Species of tree EUGL= Eucalyptus globulus (blue gum) COCI= Corymbia citriodora (lemon gum)
D DSH Diameter of trunk at standard height (unless otherwise specified)
E Area Mapping areas corresponding to the attached area maps
F Defect or concern The potential failure mode being considered G Target Abbreviation for target being considered (see “Key” tab for abbreviations)
H Occupancy How often the target is presumed to be present within the fall zone (1 is rare, 4 is constant, see “Key” tab) I Likelihood of Failure How likely we think it is that the failure will occur (see “Key” tab for abbreviations)
J Likelihood of Impact How likely we think it is, if the failure occurs, it will strike the target (see “Key” tab for abbreviations)
K Failure & Impact Matrix
1 Likelihood of I & J both occurring (see “Key” tab, table 1)
L Consequences If failure occurs and target is struck, what do we think the consequences would be (see “Key” tab for
abbreviations)
M Risk Rating of Failure
Matrix 2
The final risk rating assigned (see “Key” tab, table 2) N Level III Inspections Additional level of scrutiny needed to answer questions
O Recommendations See Narrative tab column E
Narrative Tab
Column Caption Description
A Priority 1 + highest, 4 = lowest priority
B Tree # Tree tag #
C Species Species of tree EUGL= Eucalyptus globulus (blue gum) COCI= Corymbia citriodora (lemon gum)
D Narrative Conditions observed in the tree
E Recommendations Recommended actions to be taken based on our investigation
F Level III Additional investigation recommended
G Photos Photos are available upon request for certain situations that we photographed
6 Database is in MS Excel, version 16.53 (21091200) 2019. Data in the “Data” tab and “Narrative” tab can be sorted as desired.
15 Client 1 of 11
Tree
# Species DSH Area Defect or concern
Target
V, P, H,
C, U, I,
St, O
Occu-
pancy
1234
Likelihood
of Failure
imp,po,pr,
imm
Likehood
of impact
VL,L,M,H
Failure &
Impact
Matrix 1
un,sw,L,VL
Conse-
quences
neg, min,
sig, sev
Risk
Rating
of
Failure
Matrix
2 LMHE Level III Inspections
Recommendations
(see narrative tab
column C)
1401 EUGL 38.5 1 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L 1401 " St 4 po H sw min L
1401 " U 4 po M un sev L
1401 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1401 " O 4 po H sw neg L
1402 EUGL 40@4' 1 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L REMOVE TREE 1402 " St 4 po H sw min L
1402 " U 4 po M un sev L
1402 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1402 " O 4 po H sw neg L
1402 failure of NW limb with Laetiporus gilbertsonii (sulfur conk) P 1 pr VL un sig L 1402 " O 4 pr H L neg L
1403 EUGL 28 1 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L 1403 " St 4 po H sw min L
1403 " U 4 po M un sev L
1403 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1403 " O 4 po H sw neg L
1404 EUGL 34,27 1 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L 1404 " St 4 po H sw min L
1404 " U 4 po M un sev L
1404 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1404 " O 4 po H sw neg L
1404 12" codominant limb @ 35' on S trunk fails W P 1 imp VL un sev L 1404 " O 4 imp H un neg L
1405 EUGL 31 1 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L 1405 " St 4 po H sw min L
1405 " U 4 po M un sev L
1405 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1405 " O 4 po H sw neg L
1405 high diagonal limb fails into street V 2 po L un sig L 1405 high diagonal limb fails into private yard P 1 po VL un sig L 1406 EUGL 20 1 any limb ≥ 6" fails into street V 2 pr L un sig L REMOVE TREE 1406 any limb ≥ 6" fails into private yard P 1 pr VL un sig L 1407 EUGL 27 1 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L 16 EXHIBIT 1-A
Client 2 of 11
1407 " St 4 po H sw min L
1407 " U 4 po M un sev L
1407 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1407 " O 4 po H sw neg L
1407 high vertical limb fails into street V 2 pr L un sig L 1408 EUGL 15.5@4' 1 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L REMOVE TREE 1408 " O 4 po H sw neg L
1409 EUGL 42.5 1 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L aerial inspection 1409 " St 4 po H sw min L
1409 " U 4 po M un sev L
1409 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1409 " O 4 po H sw neg L
1409 any limb ≥ 6" fails into street V 2 po L un sig L
1409 any limb ≥ 6" fails into private yard P 1 po VL un sig L 1410 EUGL 24.5 1 trunk fails at sulfur conk to W P 1 pr VL un sev L REMOVE TREE 1410 " O 4 pr H L neg L
1411 EUGL 31 1 no significant issues noted — — — — — — L 1412 EUGL 28 1 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L 1412 " St 4 po H sw min L
1412 " U 4 po M un sev L
1412 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1412 " O 4 po H sw neg L
1412 high vertical limb fails into street V 2 pr L un sig L 1413 COCI 14 1 trunk breaks and fails to S V 2 po L un sig L 1413 " P 1 po VL un sev L
1414 COCI 18 1 no significant issues noted — — — — — — L 1415 EUGL 58 2 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L REMOVE TREE 1415 " St 4 po H sw min L
1415 " U 4 po M un sev L
1415 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1415 C 4 po L un sig L
1416 EUGL 23 2 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L REMOVE TREE 1416 " St 4 po H sw min L
1416 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1416 " O 4 po H sw neg L
1417 EUGL 44 2 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L REMOVE TREE 1417 " St 4 po H sw min L
1417 " U 4 po M un sev L
1417 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1417 " H 4 po L un sev L
1418 EUGL 37@4' 2 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L aerial inspection 1418 " St 4 po H sw min L
1418 " U 4 po M un sev L
17 Client 3 of 11
1418 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1418 " H 4 po L un sev L
1418 any limb ≥ 6" fails into into SW quadrant P 1 po VL un sig L 1418 " H 4 po M un min L
1419 COCI 21 2 no significant issues noted — — — — — — L 1420 COCI 15,13 2 no significant issues noted — — — — — — L 1421 EUGL 52 3 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L REMOVE TREE 1421 " St 4 po H sw min L
1421 " U 4 po M un sev L
1421 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1421 " H 4 po L un sev L
1422 EUGL 35 3 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L aerial inspection 1422 " St 4 po H sw min L
1422 " U 4 po M un sev L
1422 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1422 " O 4 po H sw neg L
1422 high vertical limb fails into street V 2 pr L un sig L 1423 EUGL 36 3 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L aerial inspection 1423 " St 4 po H sw min L
1423 " U 4 po M un sev L
1423 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1423 " O 4 po H sw neg L
1423 any limb ≥ 6" fails into street V 2 pr L un sig L
1423 any limb ≥ 6" fails into private yard P 1 pr VL un sig L 1424 EUGL [email protected]" 3 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L 1424 " St 4 po H sw min L
1424 " U 4 po M un sev L
1424 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1424 " O 4 po H sw neg L
1424 diagonal limb fails to SW P 1 pr VL un sig L
1424 limb with burl to ESE fails into street V 2 pr L un sig L 1425 COCI 14 3 codominant limb >6" fails to west P 1 po VL un sig L 1426 COCI 20 3 any small limb falls to SW O 4 po M un min L 1427 EUGL 33 4 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 pr L un sev L REMOVE TREE 1427 " St 4 pr H sw min L
1427 " U 4 pr M sw sev M
1427 whole tree fails toward west (private property) H 4 pr H L sev H 1428 EUGL 28 4 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L 1428 " St 4 po H sw min L
1428 " U 4 po M un sev L
1428 whole tree fails toward west (private property) H 4 po M un sev L 1429 EUGL 39 4 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L 1429 " St 4 po H sw min L
18 Client 4 of 11
1429 " U 4 po M un sev L
1429 whole tree fails toward west (private property) H 4 po M un sev L 1430 EUGL 36 4 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 pr L un sev L REMOVE TREE 1430 " St 4 pr H L min M
1430 " U 4 pr M sw sev M
1430 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 pr VL un sev L 1430 " H 4 pr L un sev L
1431 EUGL 37 4 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L REMOVE TREE 1431 " St 4 po H sw min L
1431 " U 4 po M un sev L
1431 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1431 " C,O 4 po M un sig L
1432 EUGL 36 4 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L partial root crown exc. 1432 " St 4 po H sw min L
1432 " U 4 po M un sev L
1432 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1432 " C,O 4 po M un sig L
1432 large vertical limb fails into street V 2 po L un sig L 1432 large diagonal limb fails into yard P 1 po VL un sig L 1433 EUGL [email protected]' 4 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L partial root crown exc. 1433 " St 4 po H sw min L
1433 " U 4 po M un sev L
1433 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1433 " C,O 4 po M un sig L
1433 large vertical limb fails into street V 2 po L un sig L 1433 large diagonal limb fails into yard P 1 po VL un sig L 1434 EUGL 31@4' 4 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L REMOVE TREE 1434 " St 4 po H sw min L
1434 " U 4 po M un sev L
1434 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1434 C,O 4 po M un sig L
1434 horizontal limb in upper canopy fails into street V 2 po L un sig L 1435 EUGL 33 4 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L partial root crown exc. 1435 " St 4 po H sw min L
1435 " U 4 po M un sev L
1435 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sig L 1435 " H 4 po M un sig L
1435 any long vertical limb in upper canopy fails into yard P 1 po VL un sig L 1436 EUGL 24 4 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L root crown excavation 1436 " St 4 po H sw min L
1436 " U 4 po L un sev L
1436 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1436 " H 4 po L un sig L
19 Client 5 of 11
1437 EUGL 25 4 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L root crown excavation 1437 " St 4 po H sw min L
1437 " U 4 po L un sev L
1437 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1437 " H 4 po M un sig L
1438 EUGL 31.5@4' 5 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L root crown excavation 1438 " St 4 po H sw min L
1438 " U 4 po L un sev L
1438 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1438 " O 4 po H sw neg L
1438 overextended horizontal limb falls to N or W P 1 po VL un sig L 1438 " O 4 po L un neg L
1439 EUGL 36 5 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 pr L un sev L REMOVE TREE 1439 " St 4 pr H L min M
1439 " U 4 pr H L sev H
1439 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 pr VL un sev L 1439 " O 4 pr H L neg L
1440 EUGL 35 5 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L root crown excavation 1440 " St 4 po H sw min L
1440 " U 4 po M un sev L
1440 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1440 " O 4 po H sw neg L
1441 COCI 15 5 SE codominant leader fails at attachment into street V 2 imp L un sig L 1442 COCI 16 5 no significant issues noted — — — — — — L 1443 EUGL 13 5 diagonal limb to W fails at attachment O 4 imp H un neg L 1444 EUGL 28 5 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L partial root crown exc. 1444 " St 4 po H sw min L
1444 " U 4 po M un sev L
1444 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 2 po L un sev L 1444 " H 4 po H sw min L
1445 EUGL 26.5@4' 5 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L partial root crown exc. 1445 " St 4 po H sw min L
1445 " U 4 po M un sev L
1445 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1445 " H 4 po M un min L
1445 " C 4 po M un sig L
1445 horizontal limb to W fails P 1 po VL un sig L
1445 " O 4 po H sw min L
1446 EUGL 25 5 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L partial root crown exc. 1446 " St 4 po H sw min L
1446 " U 4 po M un sev L
1446 whole tree failure to SW P 1 po VL un sev L
1446 C 4 po H sw min L
20 Client 6 of 11
1447 COCI 13,9,7 5 SE trunk fails into street V 2 imp L un sig L 1448 COCI 12 6 no significant issues noted — — — — — — L 1449 COCI 14 6 no significant issues noted — — — — — — L 1450 EUGL [email protected]' 6 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 imp L un sev L partial root crown exc. 1450 " St 4 imp H un min L
1450 " U 4 imp M un sev L
1450 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1450 " C,O 4 po M un sig L
1450 " H 4 po M un sig L
1450 failure of any limb to W P 1 po VL un sig L
1450 O 4 po L un min L
1451 EUGL 30@4' 6 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L partial root crown exc. 1451 " St 4 po H sw min L
1451 " U 4 po M un sev L
1451 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1451 " O 4 po M un min L
1452 EUGL 32 6 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L partial root crown exc. 1452 " St 4 po H sw min L
1452 " U 4 po M un sev L
1452 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1452 " O 4 po L un neg L
1453 EUGL 26 6 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L partial root crown exc. 1453 " St 4 po H sw min L
1453 " U 4 po M un sev L
1453 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1453 " O 4 po L un neg L
1454 EUGL 31 6 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 po L un sev L partial root crown exc. 1454 " St 4 po H sw min L
1454 " U 4 po M un sev L
1454 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1454 " O 4 po L un neg L
1455 EUGL 28@4' 6 whole tree fails toward east (into street) V 2 imp L un sev L partial root crown exc. 1455 " St 4 imp H un min L
1455 " U 4 imp M un sig L
1455 whole tree fails toward west (private property) P 1 po VL un sev L 1455 " O 4 po L un min L
1455 " H 4 po L un min L
21 Priority Tree # Species Narrative Recommendations Level III Photos 2 1401 EUGL
root crown, trunk normal, canopy well maintained, no visible defects, vegetation at root crown
remove vegetation at base 2' from trunk and maintain,
remove all irrigation from planter, maintain canopy bi- annually
1 1402 EUGL
Laetiporus gilbertsonii (sulfur conk) on NW limb near attachemnt at 15', topped at 50-60', narrow angle included bark at 10', sprinkler at base Remove tree due to presence of sulfur conk X 2 1403 EUGL
wound at root crown E side-no decay, vegetation at root crown, large pruning wound SE at 10', topped at 50-60'
remove vegetation at base 2' from trunk and maintain,
remove all irrigation from planter, maintain canopy bi- annually
4 1404 EUGL
seems to be 1 tree with 2 trunks joined at grade, codominant limb attachment at 35' S trunk appears sound, N trunk leans west remove suckers at base, maintain canopy bi-annually X 3 1405 EUGL topped at 50-60', high diagonal limbs in upper canopy reduce high diagonal limbs in upper canopy, remove
suckers at base, maintain canopy bi-annually
1 1406 EUGL
topped at 40-50', possible sulfur conk in topping cut, poor branch attachments throughout Remove tree due to presence of sulfur conk 2 1407 EUGL
burl on S root crown, topped at 50-60', high vertical limbs originating at topping cut
reduce vertical limbs, remove suckers at base, maintain canopy bi-annually
1 1408 EUGL plunging trunk, suppressed, overcrowded, leans W Remove tree due to plunging trunk, overcrowding, lean 3 1409 EUGL
topped at 50-60', diagonal limbs above property, vertical limbs originating at topping cut reduce upper canopy, maintain canopy bi-annually aerial insp. 1 1410 EUGL sulfur conk on SE trunk at 8', leans W, topped at 40' Remove tree due to presence of sulfur conk 4 1411 EUGL topped at 40', no other issues noted remove suckers at base, maintain canopy bi-annually 2 1412 EUGL old topping cut at 40', lg vertical limbs originating at topping cut overall crown reduction, maintain canopy bi-annually 3 1413 COCI canopy severely imbalanced to S, poor trunk taper weight reduction on S side to balance canopy, maintain
canopy bi-annually
4 1414 COCI no issues observed maintain canopy bi-annually 1 1415 EUGL
sulfur conk at 1' on NE trunk with associated burl, canopy well maintained Remove tree due to presence of sulfur conk X 1 1416 EUGL
possible decayed root S side, sulfur conk nearby, 3 leaders-multiple attachments Remove tree due to presence of sulfur conk X 22 Priority Tree # Species Narrative Recommendations Level III Photos 1 1417 EUGL sulfur conk nearby Remove tree due to presence of sulfur conk 3 1418 EUGL
abnormality along main trunk at 40', excessive long limbs to S & SW in upper canopy
reduce limbs in S & SW upper canopy, maintain canopy
bi-annually aerial insp.
4 1419 COCI
predisposed to codominant attachments but appear sound, foliage on adjacent house
clear adjacent house of hanging foliage, remove S limb
with vines, maintain canopy bi-annually X
4 1420 COCI
codominant trunks, narrow angle included bark at 1.5', gummosis on S trunk
consider cabling main trunks, maintain canopy bi-
annually X
1 1421 EUGL
sulfur conk on adjacent stump to N, root crown shows abnormal swelling S side Remove tree due to presence of sulfur conk X 2 1422 EUGL
wound at base to 3' high E side-no decay, topped at 60', vertical limbs originating at or near topping cut
reduction pruning of high vertical limbs, maintain canopy bi-annually aerial insp.
2 1423 EUGL
large old pruning wound at 8' W, horizontal limbs high in canopy to W, overextended vertical limbs with multiple attachments at top, long diagonal at SE above street
needs overall crown reduction, , maintain canopy bi-
annually aerial insp.
2 1424 EUGL
imbalanced to S, limb with large burl at 30' to ESE, long diagonal limbs to SW
remove limb with large burl, reduce length of diagonal
limbs, maintain canopy bi-annually
4 1425 COCI canopy imbalanced to SW, codominat leaders with good attachments maintain canopy bi-annually 4 1426 COCI 2 previous small limb failures maintain canopy bi-annually 1 1427 EUGL
sulfur conk at root crown S side, burl at root crown W side, dieback in canopy, leaning N
Remove tree due to presence of sulfur conk, obvious
decline, lean X
4 1428 EUGL topped at 60', no other issues noted maintain canopy bi-annually 4 1429 EUGL
topped at 60', most of canopy already reduced, lots of adventitious growth remove suckers at base, maintain canopy bi-annually 1 1430 EUGL
large wound at root crown affects ~50% of root crown, root crown damaged with probable decay Remove tree due to serious damage to root crown X 1 1431 EUGL sulfur conk at root crown S side, possible topping at 35' Remove tree due to presence of sulfur conk X 2 1432 EUGL
topped at 50', multiple attachments at ~40', large vertical limbs over street, large diagonnal limbs to W, block wall to west
perform root crown excavation W side, whole canopy
crown reduction, remove suckers at base, maintain
canopy bi-annually
root crown
excavation
23 Priority Tree # Species Narrative Recommendations Level III Photos 2 1433 EUGL
multiple attachments ~35-40', large vertical limbs over street, large diagonal limbs to W
perform root crown excavation W side, whole canopy
crown reduction, remove suckers at base, maintain
canopy bi-annually
root crown
excavation
1 1434 EUGL
sulfur conk NE on ground, large horizontal limbs in upper SE canopy above street Remove tree due to presence of sulfur conk X 2 1435 EUGL
burl W side at 1', root crown concave at grade W side, topped at 50-60', long verticals in upper canopy
perform root crown excavation W side, reduce upper
canopy, remove suckers at base, maintain canopy bi-
annually
root crown
excavation
2 1436 EUGL
plunging trunk, canopy appears as mostly adventitious growth, topped at 30-40', leans SE
perform full root crown excavation, remove suckers at
base, maintain canopy bi-annually
root crown
excavation X
2 1437 EUGL
root crown concave on S side, all large limbs already reduced, slight lean to SE
perform full root crown excavation, remove suckers at
base, maintain canopy bi-annually
root crown
excavation X
2 1438 EUGL "dog leg" horizontal limbs high in canopy to N & W, imbalanced to W perform full root crown excavation, remove suckers at
base, reduce over-extended horizontal limbs, maintain
canopy bi-annually
root crown
excavation X
1 1439 EUGL sulfur conk at NE and SE root crown, abnormal root crown (enlarged) Remove tree due to presence of sulfur conk X 2 1440 EUGL canopy imbalanced to S, possibly topped at 45' perform full root crown excavation, remove suckers at
base, crown reduction to balance canopy S side,
maintain canopy bi-annually
root crown
excavation
4 1441 COCI
unusual root crown (not concerning), canopy imbalanced to W, codominant leaders at 40' with good attachment maintain canopy bi-annually 4 1442 COCI imbalaced to W, good overall structure maintain canopy bi-annually 4 1443 EUGL
root crown obscured to SW by debris but otherwise normal, wound on trunk at 2' E side, no decay, topped at 30', diagonal limb to W over shed maintain canopy bi-annually 2 1444 EUGL
concave root crown W side, topped at 65', multiple attachments at 50', narrow compact canopy
perform root crown excavation W side, remove suckers
at base, maintain canopy bi-annually
root crown
excavation
2 1445 EUGL
eroded root crown E side (not concerning), topped at 35', minor dieback in top, leans S, long horizontal limbs to W
perform root crown excavation W side, reduce W
horizontal limbs, remove suckers at base, maintain
canopy bi-annually
root crown
excavation
24 Priority Tree # Species Narrative Recommendations Level III Photos 2 1446 EUGL
eroded root crown E side (not concerning), imbalanced canopy, leaning to S, old leader failure at top
perform root crown excavation W side, crown reduction
S side to balance canopy, remove suckers at base,
maintain canopy bi-annually
root crown
excavation
4 1447 COCI
3 trunk multiple attachemnt at 1', narrow crotch angle but no significant included bark, N trunk suppressed, 2 S trunks imbalanced S maintain canopy bi-annually 4 1448 COCI no issues observed maintain canopy bi-annually 4 1449 COCI imbalanced to N, no limbs S side, maintain canopy bi-annually 2 1450 EUGL
possibly topped at 50', much adventitious growth, leans W, low diagonal and high horizontal limbs to W
perform root crown excavation W side, reduce W side to
balance canopy, remove suckers at base, maintain
canopy bi-annually
root crown
excavation
2 1451 EUGL well maintained canopy
perform root crown excavation W side, remove suckers
at base, maintain canopy bi-annually
root crown
excavation X
2 1452 EUGL well maintained canopy
perform root crown excavation W side, remove suckers
at base, maintain canopy bi-annually
root crown
excavation
2 1453 EUGL
abnormality E trunk at 18', canopy imbalanced to SW, trunk bowed to W, well maintained canopy
perform root crown excavation W side, maintain canopy
bi-annually
root crown
excavation
2 1454 EUGL minor imbalance to SW, well maintained canopy perform root crown excavation W side, maintain canopy
bi-annually
root crown
excavation
2 1455 EUGL
burl on root crown E side, lean to SW, much adventitious growth, well maintained canopy
perform root crown excavation W side, maintain canopy
bi-annually
root crown
excavation
25 Target (V, P, H, C, U, I, St, O)
Target Presence or
Occupancy
Likelihood of
Failure
Likehood of
impacting target
Failure & Impact
Matrix 1
Consequences of
impact Striking
Target
Risk Rating
of Part
Matrix 2
Level III
inspection
V- vehicle moving in st. 1= rare imp- improbable VL- very low un- unlikely negligible low AI- aerial P- person in yard, pedes. 2= occasional po- possible L- low sw- somewhat minor moderate RCE H- house or other occupied
structure 3= frequent pr- probable M- medium L- likely significant high Resi C- stationary car, boat, RV,
etc. 4= constant imm- imminent H- high VL- very likely severe extreme other U- utilities
I- intersection
St-st. obstruction or closure
O- other fence, shed, etc
TABLE 1
Likelihood of Likelihood of Impacting Target
Failure 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
TABLE 2
Likelihood of Failure Consequences of Failure Impacting Target and Impact 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
26