1395 Main St Arborist Letter - 2 trees septArbor Report
August 25, 2025
Debra Wilkins
1395 Main St.
Atlantic Beach, Fl
Re: Tree Health and Risk Assessment for two (2) water oaks (Quercus nigra).
Scope:
Services were retained to assess the health and risk for two (2) trees located at 1395 Main Street, Atlantic
Beach, Fl. (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Aerial view and tree locations.
Each tree was identified to species and visually inspected using a Level 2, Tree Risk Assessment as defined by
the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). This level of inspection includes a 360-degree
visual evaluation of the tree from top to bottom including a review of the crown, trunk, root flare, and above-
ground roots to look for structural defects, decay, pests, and disease.
Each tree was measured for Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) using a standard forestry DBH tape or field
calipers. Tree height was estimated using a clinometer and / or tangent height gauge. Live Crown Ratio (LCR)
was estimated using aerial imagery, ground observation and / or a convex spherical densiometer. LCR is a
useful measurement to indicate tree vigor using a ratio of crown length to total tree height or the percentage of a
tree’s total height that has foliage.
Risk and liability determinations include location to potential targets such as building structures, automobiles,
streets, sidewalks, and nearby utilities. The Level 2 Inspection is used to help determine three main categories
of risk: Likelihood of Failure (Imminent, Probable, Possible, and Improbable), Likelihood of Impact (High,
Medium, Low, Very Low), and Consequences of Failure (Severe, Significant, Minor, Negligible). Together,
these three risk categories can be used to help the property owners in making decisions for pruning and / or
removal.
Observations / Discussion:
These trees are approximately 55’ tall with DBHs of 18” and 20” and a LCR of around 50%. These trees are
growing in tha backyard, less than 5’ from the home. The canopies of both trees cover the home, and one tree is
slightly heaved over. The trees have several open wounds on the main stem and base and these are not
compartmentalizing.
The homeowner wishes to remove these trees to eliminate the risk of either failing and impacting the home
during a tropical storm or high wind event. These trees pose an unacceptable risk for the homeowner. Height
reduction pruning is not a practical solution for these trees. Reducing the heights and lateral limbs to lower the
overall risk rating would remove most of the living canopy of the trees and may accelerate decline.
Water oaks are a short-lived, hardwood species that typically only live to be about 60 - 70 years in optimal
conditions. Water oaks do not readily heal or compartmentalize their wounds and can commonly decay
internally of the main stem with age. Pruning cuts, broken limbs, injuries to the main stem and root damage can
provide pathways for stem decay. This decay can extend into the large lateral branches and portions of the tree
can fail without warning. Water oaks that experience this internal rot can look healthy externally but often end
up losing large branches unexpectedly or blowing over in storms. Laurel oaks are not suited for urban areas
adjacent to homes, roadways, or sidewalks due to their short life span and the threat of failing during tropical
storms and other high wind events. (Ref: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/ST/ST54900.pdf).
Any tree can fail under extreme weather events such as hurricanes and tornadoes. The following risk categories
are standardized ratings that follow the International Society of Arboriculture, Tree Risk Assessment
Guidelines. These ratings are based on available targets in which the tree could impact if it were to fail . The
Likelihood of Failure rating in this report is for a 2-year time frame from the date of inspection.
Conclusion / Risk Ratings:
The categories of risk for these trees:
Likelihood of Failure – Probable
Likelihood of Impact – High
Consequences of Failure – Significant
Potential Targets – Home
Overall Risk Rating – High for home
Tree Risk Assessment Evaluation Matrices and Definitions provided by the International
Society of Arboriculture, Tree Risk Assessment Qualification Training:
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
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
Consequences of Failure
Severe: Serious personal injury or
death, high-value property damage, or
major disruption of important
activities.
Significant: Substantial personal
injury, moderate to high-value
property damage, or considerable
disruption of activities.
Minor: Minor personal injury, low to
moderate - value property damage, or
small disruption of activities.
Negligible: No personal injury, low -
value property damage, or disruptions
that can be replaced or repaired.
Low: There is a slight chance that the
failed tree or tree part will impact the
target.
Very Low: The chance of the failed tree
or tree part impacting the specified
target is remote.
Probable: Failure may be expected
under normal weather conditions.
Possible: Failure may be expected in
extreme weather conditions, but it is
unlikely during normal weather
Improbable: The tree or tree part is not
likely to fail during normal weather
conditions and may not fail in extreme
weather conditions.
Likelihood of Impact
High: The failed tree or tree part is
likely to impact the target.
Medium: The failed tree or tree part
could impact the target but is not
expected to do so.
Likelihood of Failure
Imminent: Failure has started or is most
likely to occur in the near future, even if
there is no significant wind or increased
load.
Likelihood of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
Matrix 1 . Likelihood Matrix.
Matrix 2 . Risk Rating Matrix.
Likelihood of Failure &
Impact
Consequences of Failure
Risk Tolerance
Risk tolerance is the amount of risk you are willing to accept. Different people have varying amounts of risk
they will tolerate. You will have to decide your own risk tolerance and decide on a course of action for this tree.
Risk Mitigation Options
There are a few options that can be considered for mitigation to lower your risk for these trees.
1. Prune to reduce the length of lateral branches and tree heights by 40-50%. Reducing the height and
length of lateral branches that cover targets could reduce the risk from High to Low. Reducing the
heights and lateral limbs to lower the overall risk rating would remove most of the living canopy of the
trees and may accelerate decline. Removing the trees is the only practical solution for the homeowner. If
the trees are cut back to lower heights to lower the risk, the trees would not have any living canopy and
would degrade further.
2. Do nothing and continue to monitor the trees with regular inspections.
3. Remove the trees. This would eliminate all risk.
SINCERELY,
Ray Jarrett
Biologist / Arborist
ISA Certified Arborist FL-5343A (Nov 2005)
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ)
ASSUMPTIONS, LIMITING CONDITIONS and DISCLAIMER
My inspection was a ground based visual inspection that sometimes includes a sounding test with a mallet to detect decay. The inspection
was limited to defects that can be seen while standing on the ground. There may be defects below ground or in the canopy that were not
visible from this perspective. These hidden defects may result in the failure of branches, trunks, or roots. No other trees o n this property
were inspected other than those specifically addressed in this report. Trees and plants are living things and are subject to an array of
potential health problems, abiotic factors and unpredictable weather that can cause healthy trees and plants to fail. Informa tion provided in
this report is for consideration; and is based on my professional experience, formal education, and methodologies of the Inte rnational
Society of Arboriculture (ISA). Ultimately the client must make their own judgment and decisions but may consider these recommendations.
Technical Literature References
American National Standard Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 9) 2017. Tree Risk Assessment, Tree Care Industry
Association, Inc. (TCIA), Manchester, NH.
American National Standard Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 8) 2020. Tree, Shrub, and Woody Plant Management
– Standard Practices (Root Management), Tree Care Industry Association, Inc. (TCIA), Manchester, NH.
Black, Robert J. and Kathleen C. Ruppert. 1995. Your Florida Landscape; A Complete Guide to Planting and
Maintenance. University of Florida.
Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.2000. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition. International Society
of Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois.
Costello, L.R. and K.S. Jones. 2003. Reducing Infrastructure Damage by Tree Roots: A Compendium of
Strategies. Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture) WCISA). Porterville, CA.
Deitz, Katy. Field Guide to Diseases on Florida Trees. 2025. Florida Chapter, International Society of
Arboriculture.
Dunster, Julian A. Tree Risk Assessment Manual, Second Edition. 2017. International Society of
Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois.
Fite, Kelby and E. Thomas Smiley. 2016. Best Management Practices, Managing Trees During Construction.
International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois.
Fishel, Frederick M., Susan W. Williams and O. Norman Nesheim. 2013. Ornamental and Turfgrass
Management. University of Florida.
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. 2005. List of Florida’s Invasive Species. Internet: http://fleppc.org. Florida
Exotic Pest Plant Council.
Gilman, Ed. 2012. An Illustrated Guide to Pruning, 3rd Ed. Delmar, Cengage Learning. Clifton Park, NY.
Hodel, Donald R. 2012. The Biology and Management of Landscape Palms. University of California
Cooperative Extension. 176pp.
Luley, Christopher J., 2023. Wood Decay Fungi Common to Urban Living Trees in the Northeast & Central
United States. Urban Forest Diagnostics LLC in Cooperation with Draves Arboretum. Darien Center NY.
Matheny, N. (2000). Trees and development: A technical guide to preservation of trees during land
development. International Society of Arboriculture.
Matheny, Nelda P., and James R. Clark. Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. 1994. International
Society of Arboriculture. Champaign, Illinois.
Merullo, Victor D and Michael J. Valentine. Arboriculture & The Law. 1992. International Society of
Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois.
Purcell, Lindsey. Arboricultural Practices: A Science-Based Approach. 2024.Waveland Press, Inc. Long Grove,
Illinois.
Smiley, E. Thomas, Nelda Matheny and Sharon Lil. 2017. Best Management Practices, Tree Risk Assessment.
International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois.
Watson, Gary. 2014. Best Management Practices, Tree Planting. International Society of Arboriculture,
Champaign, Illinois.
Wunderlin, R. P., and B. F. Hansen. 2004. Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants (http://www.plantatlas.usf.edu/).[S.
M. Landry and K. N. Campbell (application development), Florida Center for Community Design and
Research.] Institute for Systematic Botany, University of South Florida, Tampa.
Documentary Photographs: