5121 Polaris Ct Arborist Letter 8.6.25 - 1 tree Seiritrices IJuly 14,2025
To Whom It May Concern.
I performed a Tree Risk Assessment on a pine tree at Fleet Landing.Attached is the Tree Risk Assessment.
The tree has a lean toward the house with some surface roots being damaged.Attached are some photos.
Thank You,
D4,niel LeBla
eC rtified Arborist#FL-6402A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification(TRAQ)
Taylor Tree Services,Inc.
4600 Ave B
St.Augustine,FL 32095
(904)-692-2008
infot xlor-te�com
� s
to •*.< �` ". .G. r �'
�
Owl
Woe-
I&9.7V
r
iF
�, ,0.;
'• IF,
liiiiiilllll ;.
10
Nj
.-'vl
•f
IS
... .._,Ara.• T ��iVr.� r '�f
A k
m �
R -
s
rr.
• �' a. F T 'Y r r6 � �`d e ��
JL
._
,e-
R3s�S F w, s"' ►�» „.r � y ).�q}
,�dl� .'*� r .I'�.�iy"j'Tr +� �r,� ^�J.s.l,•uii���4-`•�,x '" i-��a.r` il+�'�•.'.
. rry^fir' zt ..,►,'��r� a1*� .
��fill:a���.�-T �.s��R�1• �.
Ion
Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client
� -' �-, i,-1o� Date 7-1 D oA!57 Time
Address/Tree location -L El'e'_4 end f Kp �� Vc� Tree no.- Sheet��of =I, _
Tree species 2; nQ dbh / '7 Height zin Crown spread dia. ao'
Assessor(s) Dan t1-e-l L-e-13LO-Y)C. Tools used A)oje: Time frame
Target Assessment
Target zone
Occupancy M1•
5 a $ 5 • rate
Target description Target protection c 3= •� % t-ire u
2-occasionak
m a•� + '4 3-frequent u
lan F 4-constant c
1 �zc i i-t o use.
z t our e_ Aj&t hl n til
3
4
Site Factors
History of failures N t`+h 1 vtc; I Cqp e- Topography Flat❑ Slope) 1 j�% Aspect
Sitechanges None, Grade change❑ Siteclearing❑ Changed soil hydrology El Rootcuts❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume❑Saturated❑ Shallow❑ CompactedA Pavement over roots❑ % Describe
Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strongwindx Ice❑ Snow❑ Heavy rain, Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low❑ Normal)g�"Heigh❑ Foliage None(seasonal)❑ None(dead)❑ Normal-?-&% Chlorotic % Necrotic�%
Pests/Biotic /1�p t f�c l)I'_<'a n Abiotic
Species failure profile Branche Trunk[] Roots[:] Describe Logi rancAe 5
Load Factors
Wind exposure Protected❑ Partial'o Full❑ Wind funneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium❑ Large
Crowndensity Sparse❑ Normal]( Dense❑ Interior branches Fev�KNormal❑ Dense❑ vines/Mistletoe/Moss❑ A-;-,)OT_
Recent or expected change in load factors
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
—Crown and Branches—
Unbalanced crown LCR % cracks❑ Lightning damage❑
Dead twigs/branches �O%overall Max.dia_ _ Codominant❑ Included bark❑
Broken/Hangers Number- - Max.dia. Weakattachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole%circ.
Overextended 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 tuts ❑ 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 11Imminent❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable 11Imminent ❑
—Trunk— —Roots and Root Collar
Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color❑ Collar buried/Not visible ElDepth Stem girdling❑
Codominant stems Included bark❑ Cracks❑ Dead ❑ Decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms❑
Sapwood damage/decay Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sap ooze❑ QOZe ❑ Cavity❑ %circ.
Lightning damage❑ Heartwood decay❑ Conks/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 } �pc-,-l-S
Condition(s)of concern _�rL1�' Ti`t� -fiW V t-e� Condition(s)of concern REtLG� -
3
Part Size Fal!Distance Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ ModerateIR/Significant❑ Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate')1�Sign[icant❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible Probable ❑ Imminent❑ Likelihood of faiEure Improbable C] Pvssible� Probable ❑ Imminent❑
PaaP 1 of 7
Risk Categorization
Likelihood
Failure&Impact Consequences
Failure Impact ffrommatrix 1)
Target Condition(s)
(Target number Tree part 2 « >I ..
of concern ma Risk
or description) m y 3 E a s s
o a ro 5 2 3 m m ,, ns c:e U rating
o E 3 v Sao Y E n eu c_ e ? {from
y d E } S vii Y ? 2 w .n M&fix 2)
r�
'De 11x
W hoLc ram d c�
Matrix/.Likelihood matrix.
� 1
Likelihood Likelihood of Impact
of Failure Veryw Low Medium High
Imminent Unlikely I Somewhat likely Likely Very likely
Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely
Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely
Improbable Unlikely Unlikely I Unlikely I Unlikely
{
Matrix2.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 Nogh
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
Notes,explanations,descriptions
0
Mi anon options
1, Residual risk
2. Residual risk
3. Residual risk
4. Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low❑ Moderate❑ High lX Extreme❑
overall residual risk None❑ Low 0 Moderate❑ High ❑ Extreme❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data ❑Final ❑Preliminary Advanced assessment needed❑No❑Yes-Type/Reason
tnspection limitation XNone ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe
This data beet was pmduced bby the Incemaborud Society of Arboricult ue(ISA)—2017 Page 2 of 2