2337 Ocean Forest Drive West Arborist Letter ISA. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client Troy E.Andrade Date 5/31/2023 Time 0800
Address/Tree location 2337 Ocean Forest Dr.W—North of house,among azaleas/ligustrum Tree no. 1 Sheet 1 of 1
Tree species Water Oak dbh 5.5' Height 65' Crown spread dia. 60'
Assessor(s) Tallon Trammell NE7477A Tools used Phone,Probe Time frame 1+years
Target Assessment
Target zone
s c c c Occupancy
s s rate
c Target description Target protection ; c '3 = = 1-rare u V
Q x x 2-occasional
E0 .�c �p eti 3..frequent o
H im 4-constant a E tY C
1 HomeOwner/People no ✓ ✓ ✓ 3 no no
2 House no ✓ ✓ ✓ 4 no no
3
4
Site Factors
History of failures No-Large cavitiy has been decaying for years Topography Flatf Slope[] % Aspect
Site changes None Grade change Site clearing Changed soil hydrology El Root cuts Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume❑ Saturated❑ Shallow❑ Compacted❑ Pavement over roots[] % Describe
Prevailing wind direction SE Common weather Strong winds 8 Ice❑ Snow❑ Heavy rain 8 Describe Coastal Flordia
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low❑ Normal B High❑ Foliage None(seasonal)❑ None(dead)❑ Normal 90 % Chlorotic % Necrotic %
Pests/BlotiC Decay prone,fungal,boring insects Ablotic
Species failure profile Branches B Trunk 8 Roots 8 Describe Water oaks are prone to decay weakening intgrity of tree
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected❑ Partial® Full❑ Wind funneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium[F! Large❑
Crown density Sparse❑ Normal Dense❑ Interior branches Fewli Normal❑ Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑
Recent or expected change in load factors continued decay at base of tree
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
—Crown and Branches—
Unbalanced crown❑ LCR % Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Dead twigs/branches 8 10 %overall Max.dia.2" Codominant❑ Included bark ❑
Broken/Hangers Number o Max.dia. Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole%circ.
Over-extended branches ❑ Previous branch failures ❑ Similar branches present ❑
Pruning history
Dead/Missing bark❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sapwood damage/decay❑
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion-tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other Response growth
NA Condition(s)of concern NA
Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A 8 Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant❑ Load on defect N/A® Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant-]
Likelihood of failure Improbable® Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑ Likelihood of failure ImprobableB Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
—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/Galls/Burls❑ Sap ooze ❑ Ooze ❑ Cavity❑ %circ.
Lightning damage❑ Heartwood decay ff] Conks/Mushrooms❑ Cracks❑ Cut/Damaged roots❑ Distance from trunk
Cavity/Nest hole 2' %circ. Depth 2.5" Poor taper❑ Root plate lifting❑ Soil weakness❑
Lean 25 ° Corrected? NO NA
CODIT is present however wont correct missing heart wood Response growth
Response growth Large cavity at base of trunk extending up 6'
Condition(s)of concern Large cavity at base cause by natural decay Condition(s)of concern
Part Size 65 Fall Distance 65 Part Size 65 Fall Distance 65'
Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant® Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant 8
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable 0 Imminent 8 Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable 0 Imminent
Risk Categorization
Likelihood
Failure&Impact Consequences
g
Tar et Failure Impact {from Matrix 1)
Condition(s)
(Target number Tree part 2
or description) of concern 0 3E
t a a Risk
is o rating
0. o o E 3 a m '_ Y �_ > (from
a a E 2 u°� Z rL in :n Matrix 2)
Homeowner/People Whole Tree IS extreme
Cavity at base failin
House Whole Tree / / * extreme
Cavity at base failinc
Matrix/.Likelihood matrix. w ___.__.._ _._._._._._t_..........._....�_._.__..._....__....__._.l_.___
Likelihood Likelihood a€Impact ............__.._..._....._.__..._---------_ .___ _------- _._.. _------
t
.
of FailureI
Very low Low Medium High
F
Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely "__." __".` _"�...m. ...." ..... _...•._..__....._ ..______._. ..._.w.
Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely
_.-,.._
Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely — 1 j
Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely ..........._.....
...__._....... ......-__. ..._.__.__._._..._...__.___._._.____..._._._.._ _._._. _.
f
I E ,
:
I
Matrix 2.Risk rating matrix.
>
1 i
Consequences of Failure ._ ;.....
Likelihood of q 3
Impact _..._._..._......._...._:_........_.._._....._...._......_.........._....___.._.� _..,._..__....__� _____
Failure& _..... _.__._ ...._
Negligible Minor Significant Severe
Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme .._.._._a___...__._._i..........._._.l_....____.__._..........
Likely Low Moderate High High
Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate North
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
Notes,explanations,descriptions ` .,
Large cavity at base,Hollow inside base of trunk extending 6'up,old tree that had grown in space allowed i
so canopy is unbalanced ,presence of decay continuing up the center of tree,
possibly cause by old lighting damage,possibly open wound led to furthr decay down the trunk
I >
No pruning or cabling will midigate the risk to an acceptable level
Hazard tree-recommend immediate removal
Mitigation options
1.Removal Residual risk 0
z. Residual risk
3. Residual risk
a. Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low❑ Moderate❑ High❑ Extreme
Overall residual risk None @ Low❑ Moderate❑ High❑ Extreme❑ Recommended inspection interval after every big storm
Data @ Final ❑Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations @None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe
•rt,:.-a,....,.k.--,.,...,.,,a...A r.,.A—r..F.,......:...,..E c .,r atrc s t —11 Pao 1.,f?
Risk Categorization
Likelihood
Target Failure Impact Failure&Impact Consequences
g
(Target number Tree part Condition (from Matrix I)s) m
or description) of concern vc 3 r m m; : Risk
p a c O w 3 > .x u
rating
£ N ' 3 v Y m c: to iE v
ao ao E y o a eo c o s c cm �`rom
> _ =+ > Z in MotnX2j
People whole tree i ■ • • extreme
Failure at base
House whole tree i extreme
Failure at Base
Matrix 1.Likelihood matrix. —
Likelihood Likelihood of Impact
of Failure Very low L Low Medium High �+
ti
Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely
Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely
Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely N
Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely \,
1
Matrix 2.Risk rating matrix.
Likelihood of Consequences of Failure
Failure&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
Notes,explanations, descriptions
The large hollow at the base as several holes on the northside /
all the weight is on the southside so the addtional forces on the load 01-uVj
will cause failure.Remove before the tree becomes even more hazardous l Pi Oki
in the removal process
Mitigation options
2,Removal Residual risk 0
2.— — Residual risk
3' Residual risk
a' Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low❑ Moderate❑ High❑ Extreme B
Overall residual risk None® Low❑ Moderate❑ High❑ Extreme❑ Recommended inspection interval every big storm
Data IN Final ❑Preliminary Advanced assessment needed❑No❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe
this datusheet was prudu,ed by the International Suciet of.lrburi ltc.e.,15:1)—2D 1? Page 2 of 2
- •i
6r
� - N
The Water Oak has attempted to CODIT however since water oaks are susceptible rot the lower heart
wood of the trunk is no longer there. In the V picture you can see day light through the tree.The load
bearing structure of the tree is compromised
r The middle tree is the oak for this report. Majority of the
weight is heading south ( right in pic)adding additional
stresses to the defect
F
SUMMORY—Due to the extreme decay of the heart wood located at the base of the trunk immediate
removal is recommended