372 Aquatic Drive Arborist LetterJoe Musgrove
ISA Certified Arborist®
FL -9674A
Joe.lucastree@p,mail.com
(904)887-1492
April 25, 2023
Elliot Gray
372 Aquatic Drive
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233
In Re: Arborist letter
To Whom it May Concern:
Upon inspection of the property, I found a Maple tree that requires removal. The tree poses
an unnecessary risk to person and property. The tree roots are starting to pull up from the ground
making it very unstable. The tree also has a hole in the trunk and visible woodpecker holes are
covering the trunk. This is a sign of insect damage due to the poor health of the tree. The tree is a
high risk and the only solution to lower the risk, is removal.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Best regards,
zk' &—e- - ave
Joe Musgrove
T�A Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form
Client Date Time
Address/ ree location V2 fi C r�� /'.!r' r) Tree no. Sheet of
Tree species sih,'cf dbh i �n2�PS Height . Crown spread dia.
Assessor(s) rei IY( Tools used _ Time frame
Tareet Assessment
Site Fartnrs
History of failures _ _ NlA _ _ Topography Flat❑ Slope❑
Site changes None ❑ Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology Root cuts❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots % Describe
Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds ❑ Ice❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain ❑ Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low W Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic _
Pests/Biotic � 5
Species failure profile Branches i -Trunk❑ Root
Aspect
% Necrotic %
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full ❑ Wind funneling❑ _
Crown density Sparse ❑ Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal ❑ Dense ❑
Recent or expected change in load factors
Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium ❑ large ❑
Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR %
Dead twigs/branches ❑ % overall
Broken/Hangers Number
Over-extended branches ❑
Pruning history
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other —
— Crown and Branches —
Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Max. dia. Codominant ❑ included bark ❑
Max. dia. Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole %circ.
Previous branch failures ❑ _ Similar branches present ❑
Raised 11Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Response growth
Condition (s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance —_
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
—Trunk —
Dead/Missing bark,,
Target zone
Codominant stems ❑
Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑
Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑
_ °
Occupancy
Depth Poor taper ❑
Lean ° Corrected?
E
r v Y
'�
rate
rare
c n
—
c' Target description
Target protection 3 3 =
2occasional
L°
�p.0 �p q
3 f eq ent
G
f
1= H
4 -constant
a E
rr a
1
2
3
4
Site Fartnrs
History of failures _ _ NlA _ _ Topography Flat❑ Slope❑
Site changes None ❑ Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology Root cuts❑ Describe
Soil conditions Limited volume ❑ Saturated ❑ Shallow Compacted ❑ Pavement over roots % Describe
Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds ❑ Ice❑ Snow ❑ Heavy rain ❑ Describe
Tree Health and Species Profile
Vigor Low W Normal ❑ High ❑ Foliage None (seasonal) ❑ None (dead) ❑ Normal % Chlorotic _
Pests/Biotic � 5
Species failure profile Branches i -Trunk❑ Root
Aspect
% Necrotic %
Wind exposure Protected ❑ Partial ❑ Full ❑ Wind funneling❑ _
Crown density Sparse ❑ Normal ❑ Dense ❑ Interior branches Few ❑ Normal ❑ Dense ❑
Recent or expected change in load factors
Relative crown size Small ❑ Medium ❑ large ❑
Vines/Mistletoe/Moss ❑
Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure
Unbalanced crown ❑ LCR %
Dead twigs/branches ❑ % overall
Broken/Hangers Number
Over-extended branches ❑
Pruning history
Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑
Reduced ❑ Topped ❑
Flush cuts ❑ Other —
— Crown and Branches —
Cracks ❑ Lightning damage ❑
Max. dia. Codominant ❑ included bark ❑
Max. dia. Weak attachments ❑ Cavity/Nest hole %circ.
Previous branch failures ❑ _ Similar branches present ❑
Raised 11Dead/Missing bark ❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Lion -tailed ❑ Conks ❑ Heartwood decay ❑
Response growth
Condition (s) of concern
Part Size Fall Distance —_
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
—Trunk —
Dead/Missing bark,,
Abnormal bark texture/color ❑
Codominant stems ❑
Included bark ❑ Cracks ❑
Sapwood damage/decay ❑
Cankers/Galls/Burls ❑ Sap ooze ❑
Lightning damage El Heartwood decay El Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Cavity/Nest hole % circ.
Depth Poor taper ❑
Lean ° Corrected?
Response growth
Condition (s) of concern
Part Size
Fall Distance
Part Size Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ Imminent ❑
— Roots and Root Collar —
Collar buried/Not visible ❑ Depth
Dead ❑ Decay ❑
Ooze ❑
Cracks ❑ Cut/Damaged roots ❑
Root plate lifting ❑
Response growth -
Condition (s) of concern
Part Size
Stem girdling ❑
Conks/Mushrooms ❑
Cavity ❑ % circ.
Distance from trunk
Soil weakness ❑
Fall Distance
Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑ Load on defect N/A ❑ Minor ❑ Moderate ❑ Significant ❑
Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable 0 Imminent ❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable Possible Probable ❑ Imminent 0
Risk Categorization
Target
(Target number
or description)
Tree part
Condition(s)
of concern
Likelihood
Consequences
Risk
rating
(from
Motrix2)
Failure
Impact
Failure & Impact
(from Matrix 1)
d
c
m
c
CL
£
d"
C
a
G
a
«
c
'E
3
o
>
C
3
E
3
L00
2
>
C
D
L
O
to
Y
:7
=
>
d
d,
z
o
=
«
c
M
ff„
m
in
N
fn
Matrix/. Likelihood matrix.
Likelihood
of Failure
Very low
Likelihood of Impact
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
I Unlikely
I Unlikely I
Unlikely
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.
Likelihood of
Failure & Impact
Negligible
Consequences of Failure
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. exolanations. descriptions
Mitigation
1. A -)r!
2.
3.
4.
O(G 1 1`5 G41,4 ntl) .�irr13
North
_ Residual risk .
Residual risk
Residual risk
Residual risk
Overall tree risk rating Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑
Overall residual risk None ❑ Low ❑ Moderate ❑ High ❑ Extreme ❑ Recommended inspection interval
Data ❑Final ❑ Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ❑No ❑Yes-Type/Reason
Inspection limitations ❑None ❑Visibility ❑Access ❑Vines ❑Root collar buried Describe ._ _
•n.;� --4--.4 ti...T.e T...o....,.:,,...a c—a.....,.f A t,....,—U.— ITC A% oni o P— 9 of I