333 9th Street Arborist Letter HUFFMAN TREE SERVICE
...........................................................................................................................................
P.O. Box 50372
jack5onville Beach, FL_. 32240
904-241-0705-B
904-241-5621-Fax �s
.January 31 , 2023
To: City of Atlantic Beach
This letter is in regards to the current status and condition of a Sable
palmetto tree located at the Gordon residence at 333 9`h Street
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233. The tree is located on the north side of
the house in the back yard center.
This mature palm tree is approx. 50'ft in height with a 15" DBH
(diameter at breast height). It has a severe lean from the neighbor's
house to the north. Additionally, the trunk has several compromised
areas that show significant decay.
Based on these factors the tree poses unacceptable risk to the
homeowner's property and is considered a liability. The only way to
mitigate this risk is to remove the tree.
If you have any further questions let me know.
Sincerely,
Robert M. Huffman
Certified Arborist
FL-5220A
SA, Basic Tree Risk Assessm n Form
Client 'A0(, �.J v`30/�-' Date Time
Address/Tree location 333 s — ( rL, Tree no. Sheet of
Tree species dbh /' Height Crown spread dia.
Assessors) XILP ✓ Tools used 0, ZW /lyveC Time frame
Target Assessment
Target zone
G c c Occupancy
r c t rate $ m c C.
Target description Target protection 3 c ; i 3 X 2_occasional � M
L! 3—frequent V >
12 F 4-constant a. O a CL
� f
3
4
Site Factors
History of failures Topography FlatM'Slope❑ % Aspect
Site changes None Grade change❑ Site clearing Changed soil hydrology Root cuts 11 Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume Saturated❑ Shallow❑ Compacted❑ Pavement over roots❑ % Describe
Y
Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds❑ Ice❑ Snow❑ Heavy rain❑ Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low❑ Normal Ef High❑ Foliage None(seasonal)[] None(dead)❑ Normal % Chlorotic % Necrotic.__
Pests/Biotic Abiotic
Sipecies failure profile Branches❑ Trunk Roots[] Describe
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected❑ Partial II❑ Wind funneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium La rge1',J
Crown density Sparse❑ Normal Dense❑ Interior branches Few❑ Normal❑ Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑
Herent or expected change in load factors
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
` — Crown and Branches— I
Unbalanced crown❑ LCR % r
Cracks❑ Lightning darriqq�e ❑
Dead twigs/branches❑ %overall Max.dia. Codominant❑ _ Included bark 0
Broken/Hangers Number Max.dia. Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest holed/o circ.
Over-extended branches ❑ ----^�
Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sapwood damage/decay
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion-tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth
Condition(s)of concern _
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance _
Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant❑ load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ 1
—Trunk— — Roots and Root Collar—
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color Collar buried/Not visible❑ Depth Stem girdling❑
Codominant stems ❑ Included bark❑ Cracks Dead ❑ Decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms❑
Sapwood damage/decay❑ Cankers/Ga: "'Con
/ rls❑ Sap ooze 13 Ooze ❑ Cavity 11 %circ.
Lightning damage❑ Heartwood dca
ey ks/Mushrooms❑ Cracks❑ Cut/Damaged roots❑ Distance from trunk _
Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth Poor taper
Root plate lifting❑ Soil weakness❑
Lean Corrected?
Response growth Response growth
Condition(s)of concern Condition(s)of concern
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant El Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable 0 Imminent NJJ Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable 0 Imminent;❑
uKeunooa
Failure Impact Failure&Impact Consequences
Target Condition(s) (from Matrix 1)
(Target number Tree part d
of concern -0 T m c Riskordescription) m a v W 3 s v n v
o m o n 3 Y rating
o_ o £ 3 v =nn Y £ v �' cu c° e m (from
E o. a -9/1 j 2 voi Z i.1vii Matrix 2)
Matrix 1.Likelihood matrix. -. -•
l-ikelihood Likelihood of Impact
of 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 I Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely --,i------
� f
Matrix 2.Risk rating matrix.
Likelihood of Consequences of Failure
Failure&Impact Negligible Minor Significant Severe
Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme _._.__. ._ .._._...___.. ...._.._...... ........_............__..._.._.._.......__.. ......................._.. _e...........__
Q y
Likely Low Moderate High High
Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate North
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
N1,tes,explanations,descriptions
Mitigation options
t. Residual risk
z. Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
in/
Overall tree risk rating Low❑ Moderate❑ HighVExtreme
xtreme El
Overall r sidual risk None El Low El Moderate El High ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data Final ❑PrelimiAdvanced assessment needed ❑No❑Yes-Type/Reason
na
Inspection limitations None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe
..ve,-t,,..:,...i.......(K gni- paor..7r,f�