Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTree Risk Evaluation 721 031 020Tree Risk Evaluation – West Property Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC Date: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 To: Cheryl West Email: cdwest197@gmail.com Phone: 949-292-4882 Project Address: 1482 Shine Rd Port Ludlow, WA 98365 Parcel: 721031020 Prepared by: Courtney Bornsworth Plant Biologist ISA Certified Arborist Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Chelsea Drum, M.S. Forester, Environmental Scientist Member, Society of American Foresters Reviewed by: John Bornsworth 104 North Laurel Street, Suite 110 Port Angeles, WA 98362 Office: (360) 504-3825 Email: contact@peninsulauf.com Web: www.peninsulauf.com ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® #PN-7955AM ISA Certified Municipal Arborist@ Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Plant Ecologist O 2018, Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC All rights reserved. JUL 1 0 2018 D SUMMARY Our Certified Arborist evaluated five red alder trees at Cheryl West's above- named shoreline residence. Five of the five trees were rated as high risk outside of the shoreline jurisdiction and two were rated as high risk within shoreline jurisdiction. We recommend the removal or another form of risk mitigation for the high-risk trees. Three removals are 200+ feet away from shoreline jurisdiction, while two dead trees are within shoreline jurisdiction. The dead trees within the shoreline have ecosystem function limited to avian perching habitat, and avian cavity nesting. Wood from the shoreline removals should remain on the backshore to facilitate ground habitat. An extended permit is requested to allow the homeowner time to complete the hazard tree removals. The time requested is 36 months. Certified. Licensed. Bonded. Insured. General Contractor No. PENINUF841 NE. Certified_Arborists—Tree Risk Evaluation Tree Preservation Experts Wetland Biola ists—Plant Ecologists—Environmental cin ultin May 1 2o18 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Risk Evaluation INTRODUCTION Cheryl West contacted Peninsula Urban Forestry ("PUF") in mid-April 2018 with a request to inspect and evaluate five (5) alder trees for risk and management recommendations. The first three subject trees are clustered on the NE side of the property near an outbuilding and ravine. The two other subject trees are on the shoreline, one is on the walking path and the other is on the Ordinary High -Water Mark. Our biological inspection, evaluation and analysis, identified risk and recommended treatments are included in this letter. Please contact Peninsula Urban Forestry with questions you may have regarding this report. A specific list of our scope of evaluation: -"_1) evaluate 5 alder trees on above named property. 2) Provide management recommendations for the trees. Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC employees or consultants visited the property on April 261., 2418. This report summarizes the data collected during our site reconnaissance and assessment, our conversations regarding the project, and our professional opinions and recommendations. The results and recommendations of this report represent our professional opinion compiled from on-site forensics, information provided to us, referenced material and our experience. Our recommendations are compiled with industry standards, best -available -science and currently accepted best management practices. This report is intended for the exclusive use of the Client and its agents and for specific application to the referenced property. Use this report to assist in future management decisions of evaluated plants and properties. Our evaluation does not cover the entire tract of land but only trees within the general vicinity of the structures on site. Further survey and investigatory work is required for a more full-scale forest management opinion. .s_�_r-Iinsulauf.com Page 2 122 May 1 2018 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Risk Evaluation TREE RISK METHODOLOGY A tree is a repository of its entire natural history. Trees are self -optimizing mechanical structures, as such, they react to mechanical and physiological stresses by growing more vigorously in areas of high stress and less vigorously in areas of low stress. An expert understanding of this mechanism of plant physiology, the Axiom of Uniform Stress, allows us to make informed judgements regarding the conditions of trees. This evaluation of tree health and structure utilizing the axiom of uniform strength, is labeled the visual tree assessment (VTA) method. VTA is defined by an identification and classification of visual clues on trees. The accumulation of this compensatory growth and other morphological plasticity are key factors in VTA. A tree's risk is a dynamic concept based on subjective interpretations by a qualified evaluator. Specially trained Certified Arborists evaluate tree risk as either "Low", "Moderate", "High", or "Extreme". Tolerance of that interpreted tree risk is entirely decided by the tree owner. The only way to eliminate tree risk entirely is to remove all trees within an area of impact of a target. All trees have aggravating circumstances such as some foliar loss, wood branch dieback, nutrient depletion, drought, overwatering, root disturbance, pathogenic fungi, internal non -damage induced decay, bacteria, insects and more. It's the task of the tree risk evaluator to identify these aggravating circumstances and grade them and their influences in an integrated fashion, looking at the ecology of the tree and surrounding built environment. For trees to have a risk, they must have a target to impact. Targets are the structures, thoroughfares, utility boxes, parking areas, steep slopes, other trees and any other object which could potentially become damaged or conflicted with tree -part failure. We evaluate likelihood of impact and likelihood of damage associated with trees and their targets. The potential risk a tree owner is willing to accept is the sole responsibility of the tree owner/manager and any applicable governing laws. The best course of action when managing large quantities of potential tree risk (either low, medium or high risk) is to actively participate and encourage the yearly or biennial monitoring of trees by a qualified professional. Additional information on Tree Risk Methodology in Appendix E. JEFFERSON C NTY SHORELINE MASTER PRC RAM The Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program defines (JCC 18.25.100.(8).(e)) hazard tree as any tree "that presents a risk to persons or property due to a high probability of falling in the near future because of a debilitating disease, a structural defect, a root ball significantly exposed, or having been exposed to windthrow within the past 10 years. Hazardous trees include, but are not limited to, conditions where a permanent, primary structure or appurtenant or accessory structure is within one and one-half tree lengths of the base of the trunk. Where not immediately apparent to the administrator, the hazard tree determination shall be made after review of a report prepared by a certified arborist or forester." www.penins�clauf.com Page 3 122 May i 2oi8 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Risk Evaluation JCC 18.25.310.(d).(vii) States: "Removal of a hazard tree, as defined in Article II of this chapter, where trimming is not sufficient to address the hazard. In such cases, the downed tree shall be retained on site to provide wildlife habitat and enhance in -stream or marine habitat if present. The location of retained materials placed on site shall reflect firewise program guidance for defensible space and fire safety. Where not immediately apparent to the administrator, the hazard tree determination shall be made after review of a report prepared by an arborist or forester." OBSERVATIONS, FINDINGS & ANALYSIS All trees examined are red alder (A/nus rubra). The first three subject trees are clustered on the NE side of the property near an outbuilding and border a steep ravine. Trees 1-3 are approximately 35-40ft from the outbuilding. Tree 1 is -84ft tall and has a diameter of -22 inches measured 4.5ft above grade ("DBH"), measured from the upper soil level. Tree 1 is fully dead with no remaining canopy. Tree 2 is -75ft tall and the tree's DBH is -23in. Tree 2 has a very sparse canopy (<15% living crown). Tree 3 is 42ft tall, and it's DBH is -20in. Tree 3 also has a very limited canopy (<15% living crown). Trees 1 through 3 are roughly 400 feet from the Original High -Water Mark ("OHWM"). Tree 4 & 5 are within 15 feet of the OHWM. Tree 4 is nearby a walking path from the West residence to the shore. Tree 4 is -40ft tall with a diameter of -15in. Tree 4 shows signs of woodpecker damage. Tree 4 has no living canopy. Tree 5 overhangs a public beach with roots exposed to the OHWM. The buttress roots are growing into and actively buttressing the soils of the bank. The bank in this area is 8-10 vertical feet. Tree 5 expresses significant decay and ongoing natural retrenchment (active growth in lower branches). Living canopy is estimated at 10%. Tree height is -35ft. Current coastal ecosystem benefits of Trees 4 & 5 are limited due to their current state of health. Tree 4 & 5 both lack the vast majority of foliage, reducing their ability to intercept stormwater in the summer months and wick moisture from soils. The lack of living foliage on Tree 5 also reduces its annual detrital input, and its ability to shade and cool forage fish spawning habitat on the beach. Washington State's Department of Fish & Wildlife Priority Habitat web application notates the area as pacific herring breeding area. (htt:Ja 1)s.wd'fw.wa.uov/r)hsoritheLAebl} As noted above, the lack of shoreline shading and lack of detrital input the trees provide is minimal. Revegetation in the area will mitigate for lost coastal functions. www.peninsulauf.com Page 4122 May 12oi8 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Risk Evaluation COMMENTS Tree Risk & Mode of Failure Tree 1, 2 & 3 are all evaluated as having high risk of whole tree failure. The target for all trees are the residential outbuilding and primary structure. Trees 4 & 5 are evaluated as having a high risk of failure. Targets of Tree 4 & 5 are homeowners accessing the beach. Trees 1-3 are all growing on a small ravine of a man-made drainage ditch. Ecosystem services lost by the removal of Trees 1-3 include root -soil cohesion, near surface soil binding, soil moisture modification, surface flow velocity retardation, rainwater interception and energy absorption. Given all three trees are notably dead and lacking in living canopy, these ecosystem services have already discontinued. Due to the presence of other local trees adjacent to the removals the loss of these trees will not affect slope ecology and function significantly. Trees 1-5 could be converted to habitat trees if full removal was not desired by the property Owner. Implementation of habitat conversion could be difficult given their current level of decay. We will recommend the trees not be climbed due to significant risk of failure. If a tree service is able to use a lift truck or anchoring into a safe nearby tree, the red alder trees can be safely converted to habitat trees. The invasive plant Himalayan blackberry is likely causing issues with young tree development. To mitigate for Subject Trees 1-3 removal and to stabilize the ravine's slope, it is recommended that the invasive species be removed and replaced with native, evergreen shrubs and trees. All wood from the removals should be retained on site to provide ground habitat for wildlife and engage natural soil processes. Shoreline trees removed should be retained on the beach to facilitate recruitment of woody debris and buffer wave energy. Removal of the two trees on the shoreline will require mitigation to reduce and compensate for the ecosystem losses. Table 1. Tree Risk Summary Table Tree Species Condition Distance to Risk Recommendations Number ( Target Rating 1 Red alder Dead 35-40ft to High Habitat conversion or full Outbuilding _ _ i aboveground removal 2 Red alder Dying 35-40ft to High Habitat conversion or full Outbuildin�c _aboveground removal 3 Red alder Dead 35-40ft to High Habitat conversion or full i Outbuilding aboveground removal 4 " Red alder Dead Variable High Habitat conversion or full aboveground removal 5 Red alder Dying Variable High Habitat conversion or full I above round removal www.peninsulauf.com Page 5 122 May 12028 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Risk Evaluation RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend the following actions: 1. Tree 1 risk mitigation: 1.1. Reduce height of tree to roughly 20-25 feet. -OR- 1.2. Full above ground tree removal. 1.3. No soil disturbance or root disturbance of any kind shall occur. 2. Tree 2 risk mitigation: 2.1. Reduce height of tree to roughly 20-25. feet. -OR- 2.2. Full above ground tree removal. 2.3. No soil disturbance or root disturbance of any kind shall occur. 3. Tree 3 risk mitigation: 3.1. Reduce height of tree to roughly 20-25 feet. -OR- 3.2. Full above ground tree removal. 3.3. No soil disturbance or root disturbance of any kind shall occur. 4. Tree 4 risk mitigation: 4.1. Reduce height of tree to roughly 20-25 feet. -OR- 4.2. Full above ground tree removal. 4.3. No soil disturbance or root disturbance of any kind shall occur. 4.4. If removed, follow Revegetation Plan to mitigate for shoreline function loss. 4.5. Retain felled tree in shoreline. 4.6. Reduce total length of tree by cutting in half to facilitate beach access. 5. Tree 5 risk mitigation: 5.1. Reduce height of tree to roughly 20-25 feet. -OR- 5.2. Full above ground tree removal 5.3. No soil disturbance or root disturbance of any kind shall occur. 5.4. If removed, follow Revegetation Plan shoreline function loss. 5.5. Retain felled tree in shoreline. 5.6. Reduce total length of tree by cutting in half to facilitate beach access. 6. All wood from tree removal operations should be left on site to decay. www.peninsulauf.com Page 6 122 May i 2o18 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Risk Evaluation REPLANTIMC,p PLAN To mitigate for loss of ecosystem function on the shoreline, we recommend installing plants to 1) replace soil cohesion through plant roots, 2) replace increase soil moisture wicking via plants, 3) replace shade over beaches for forage fish populations, 4) replace lost detritus entering coastal system. • We recommend installing a combination of native vine maple (Acercircinatum) and shore pine (Pinus contorta var. contorta). • Replacement shall be at a ratio of 3 installed to each tree removed. • Plants shall be mulched and irrigated during the summer months until fully established. • Mulch shall be arborist woodchip or composted woodchip spread around the plant in a circle starting at 2 inches away from the extending 36 inches. • Irrigation can be by hand or via drip irrigation. • When planting, be sure to install trees so their root collar is level with the grade. Planting too deep or too high will cause tree mortality. • Plants can be purchased from Valley Nursery in Poulsbo. Quantity Common name of Size of tree Preferred container re lacement plant 3 Vine maple 1.0 inches diameter at Balled and burlapped or ground or 36 inches tall 15 -gallon 3 Shore pine 1.5 inches diameter at Balled and burlapped or ground or 36 inches tall 15 -gallon www.peninsulauf.com Page 7 122 May 3. 2o18 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Risk Evaluation CLOSING Work for this project was performed and this report prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Myself, nor Peninsula Urban Forestry, has any current or prospective interest in the plants or properties discussed. Acceptance of this report acknowledges receipt and agreement with Peninsula Urban Forestry's attached Assumptions & Limiting Conditions. Thank you for the opportunity to evaluate your plant and tree needs. I appreciate your business and look forward to working with you in the future. If you have questions now, or in the future, do not hesitate to contact us. Peninsula Urban Forestry appreciates answering any questions you may have. Peninsula Urban Forestry can provide a mitigation plan or replanting plan if requested for the Jefferson County permit application. Courtney Bornsworth ISA Certified Arborist & Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Biologist co u rt n eve? pen i nsulau F. gorn Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC 104 North Laurel Street, Suite 110 Port Angeles, WA 98362 Contractor's License: PENINUF841 NE www.peninsulauf.com Page 8 122 12018 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Risk Evaluation APPENDIX A: SITE PLAN High Riak Tree 1 High Riak Tree 2 High Risk Tree 3 High Riak Tree 4 hi High Riak Tree 5 Target www.12eninsulauf.com Page 9122 May 1 2oi8 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Risk Evaluation APPENDIX B: QEC3LOGIC CRITICAL AREAS High Riak Tree 1 High Riak Tree 2 High Riak Tree 3 * High Riak Tree 4 High Riak Tree 5 Target S V" C "�l: �•C S�STC4•RR S 9-! • � E�Ot D^ '•�J�'C �? EROS ON www.peninsulauf.com Page 10 122 May 12018 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Risk Evaluation APPENDIX_C; WETLANDS, SMP, AND CARR CRITICAL AREAS I www.peninsulauf.com P a g e 11 122 CRITICAL AREA LEGEND Wgdand. Wetlands c ❑ Channel Migration Zones { +JD CARA (Critical Aquifer Re&args Areas) SARPA + UNK J SARPA-SUSC i J SUSC SARPA '} SUSC-UNK P ❑ SIPZ (Seawater Inmwion Protection Zones) .22 SMP -Shoreline EnvironmentalO"gnarions 'r Aquatic is Priority Aquatic i •� 0 Conservancy �'f 0 High Intensity 0 NA ■ Natural 0 Shoreline Residential r i I www.peninsulauf.com P a g e 11 122 0 A6 y ► Oki Y+ � ,Y 1' =w � , � t � \� � i rir T =�, f .; .�',,; �:; � '�`� ; �" � � � i `��.'' gid'.. " May 12018 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Risk Evaluation HIGH RISK TREE PHOTO 6 www.peninsulauf.com Page 17 122 May 12018 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Risk Evaluation APPENDIX E• TREE 15K EVALUATION MEIHODOLOGY The tree risk methodology used for this report was developed by the ISA in 2013. Tree Risk Assessment Manual, authored by Dr. Julian Dunster and published by the ISA is the industry standard for the assessment of tree risk. This systematic approach to quantifying tree risk incorporates likelihood of failure, likelihood of impact and consequence of failure to measure the tree risk of specific targets. See Table 1 for details. The ANSI standard for risk assessment and ISA's Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment defines three levels of tree risk assessment. Level 1: Limited visual Level 2: Basic Level 3: Advanced Using the below matrices, I identify a likelihood of tree part failure. This can be root based failure, trunk failure, or branch failure. Then, I evaluate the likelihood of this failure impacting a predetermined target. Matrix 1 gives me a likelihood of failure and impact which I use along with predetermined consequences of a failure to arrive at a risk rating. Matrix 1. Likelihood of Failure and Impact (Dunstser, 2013) Likelihood of Failure Likelihood of Impacting Target Very Low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Unlikely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrix 2. Risk Rating (Adapted from Dunster 2013 and Mathenv 1994) Likelihood of Failure and Impact Consequences of Failure Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely 4 — Low 7 — Moderate 10 — High 12 — Extreme Likely 4 — Low 6 — Moderate 9 — High 11 — High Somewhat likely 3 — Low 5 — Low 6 — Moderate 8 — Moderate Unlikely 3 — Low 3 — Low 4 — Low 5 — Low As the matrices show, a tree can have moderate risk of failure by either a "minor consequence" which is "very likely" to occur, or a "significant consequence" that is "somewhat likely" to occur. A real-life scenario is a native cottonwood normally shedding small branches over a parking lot and oppositely, a large, over-extended but secure oak branch over a playground. These scenarios offer similar risk ratings yet the management of these risks is very different. This is where a skilled arboricultural/horticultural expert trained in managing tree risk is necessary to differentiate risks and offer remedial opportunities. www.peninsulauf.com Page 18 122 12o3.8 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Risk Evaluation Some options for mitigation of tree risk include: Acceptance of risk., All vegetation comes with some inherit risk. Most often this risk is tolerable and will have no significant effects on risk potential. Normally, tree benefits far outweigh associated risks. Retain and monitorLor chan_ges: When a tree has some level of potential risk but not enough to warrant a more extensive mitigation. Most retain and monitor plans recommend a return time -frame of 1-3 years. Move offending target from d mage radios: If target is not fixed, this can be the simplest of mitigation techniques. Mo! i&&pr©bability of&ilure.-This mitigation includes techniques like stress -load - reductions, propping, cabling, bracing and habitat conversions. Full removal of tree risk,- Full removal of offending tree or tree parts (branches). Roles and Responsibilities of Tree Risk: The proper roles of Tree Risk Assessors (Certified Arborists with additional qualification as a Qualified Tree Risk Assessor) and Tree Risk Managers (owners of trees) are very different. These roles are clearly delineated in two publications which are generally accepted guidelines for tree risk assessment in the arboricultural industry: Tree Care Industry Association. 2011. American National Standard for Tree Care Operations — Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Maintenance — Standard Practices (Tree Risk Assessment a. Tree Structure Assessment) (A300, Part 9) Tree Care Industry Association, Manchester, NH. 14pp. Smiley, E. T., N. Matheny, and S.J. Lilly. 2011. Best Management Practices.- Tree Risk Assessment. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, IL. 81 pp. The Tree Risk Assessor's role includes the following responsibilities, as defined in a scope of work or project assignment: • Evaluate and classify the likelihood of a tree failure impacting a target. • Evaluate the potential consequences of a tree failure. • Record and explain findings to the client; • Determine tree risk; and • Provide options for treatment to mitigate risk. The role of the Tree Risk Manager (the tree owner, property manager, or controlling authority) includes the following responsibilities: • Meet a duty of care; • Determine the scope of work; • Specify the desired level of assessment; • Choose among risk mitigation options; • Decide the level of acceptable risk, and • Prioritize work. www.peninsulauf.com Page 19122 12018 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Risk Evaluation Allen, E., Morrison, D. & Wallis G. (1996). Common Tree Diseases of British Columbia, Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service. Victoria, BC. Dunster & Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2006 Assessing Trees in Urban Areas and the Urban -Rural Interface, US Release 1.0. Silverton: Pacific Northwest Chapter ISA. Dunster, Julian A., E. Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly. 2013. Tree Risk Assessment Manual. Champaign, Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture. Gilman, Edward, An Illustrated Guide to Pruning, 3rd Edition. International Society of Arboriculture. Delmar, Cenage Learning ©. Clifton Park. NY. 2012. Print. Mattheck C & Breloer H, 1994, The Body Language of Trees: A handbook for failure analysis. The Stationary Office. London, UK. Schwarze, Francis W. M. R. Diagnosis and Prognosis of the Development of Wood Decay in Urban Trees. Rowville: ENSPEC, 2008. Print. www.peninsulauf.com Page 20 122 May 12oi8 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Risk Evaluation APPENDIX • ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING UABIL11 1. Any legal description provided to Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC assumes no responsibly for verification of ownership or locations of property lines, or for results of any actions or recommendations based on inaccurate information. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or other governmental regulations, unless explicitly stated otherwise. 2. Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC assumes no responsibilities for legal matters in character. Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC assumes all property appraised or evaluated is free and clear, and is under responsible ownership and competent management. 3. Any evaluation or assessment carried out was restricted to the property and the plants or landscapes within the Scope of Assignment. No assessment of any other plants or landscapes has been undertaken by Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC. The conclusions of this report do not apply to any zones, landscapes, trees, plants, or any other property not explicitly covered in the Scope of Assignment. 4. The total monetary amount of all claims or causes of action the Client may have as against Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC, including but not limited to claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract, shall be strictly limited to solely the total amount of fees paid by the Client to Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC pursuant to the Agreement for Services as dated for which this Assignment was carried out. Further, under no circumstance may any claims be initiated or commenced by the Client against Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC. or any of its directors, officers, employees, contractors, agents, or Assessors, in contract or in tort, more than 12 months after the date of this Assignment. 5. Although Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC has taken care to obtain all information from reliable sources and to verify the data insofar as possible, Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC does not guarantee and is not responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others 6. Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC shall not be required to testify or attend court due to any report unless mutually satisfactory contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such Services as described in a Consulting Arborist Agreement. 7. Unless otherwise required by law, possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the parties to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC. www.ueninsulauf.com P a g e 21 122 May i 2o3.8 Peninsula Urban Forestry Tree Risk Evaluation 8. Neither all or any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed to anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media, without prior expressed written consent of Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC. Particularly as to value conclusions, identify of Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC., or any reference to any professional society or to any initialed designation conferred upon Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC as stated in its qualifications. 9. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC, and the Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specific value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event or upon any finding to be reported. 10. All photographs included in this report were taken by Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC during the documented site visit, unless otherwise noted. 11. Sketches, drawings and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of any information generated by architects, engineers or other Peninsula Urban Forestry, LI -Cs and any sketches, drawings or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of such information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC as to the sufficiency or accuracy of the information. 12. Unless otherwise agreed, (1) information contained in this report covers only the items 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, climbing, or coring. Peninsula Urban Forestry, LLC makes no warranty or guarantee, express or implied, that the problems or deficiencies of the plans or property in question may not arise in the future. 13. This report is based on the condition of the trees, landscape, or plants at the time of inspection. 14. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. This report is only valid if reproduced from a digital file. 15. Unless explicitly stated as "exact", all measurements provided have an error range of±15% wvww_peninsulauf.corni Page 22 122