opinion on hazard tree assessment

[Greenleaf]

To date the tree is still standing.

As I had mentioned in an earlier post, my report to the municipality outlined that the tree is not in imminent danger of failing under normal circumstances. However there are some defects (seen both by common sense, and following the hazard tree criteria) which ultimately raises the risk level of the tree (defects+target=risk). It is now up to the owner of the tree (they are still trying to determine if it is a town tree or not) to decide what their acceptable threshold of risk is.

I just returned last week from the Urban Tree Risk Assessment course in Coquitlam. Applying all of the methodology from the course aligned with my original assessment. The tree is placed as a high risk. For those who have taken this course it was scored as follows (prob. of failure=2, size of defective part=3, target rating=3). This gives the tree a score of 8 out of 12, with 10-12 being a tree in imminent danger of failing and action would be required immediately. Keep in mind that all trees pose some level of risk unless they are stumps. So a typical healthy tree with a target will likely score a 3 without any visible defects.

Clearance, no question that utility guys are some of the most competent tree climbers around. I hold a great amount of respect for the trade. That still doesn't make you an expert on trees, nor does having an ISA certification. Anyone who wants to pretend that they know it all will ultimately be stung hard at some point in their career. Keep in mind though that all of those trees you are cutting for hydro with shiny orange dots were first looked at by an assessor who would have put the exact same process as I've used here to use to identify those trees. I have been doing assessments for hydro as well, and I would have scored this tree the same and likely given to my BC Hydro rep to make the ultimate decision. I'll run it by him to see what he'd say if it were beside the line.

 

[Nailsbeats]

What I'm trying to say is that as professionals, we should not be condemning a tree without sound scientific logic. And 'someday it's gonna fall on the living room' is NOT sound scientific logic. To me it's a hack's sales pitch. Following that logic, every tree in every municipality over 8' should be removed. Ludicrous. QUOTE.



Hack sales pitch my A$$. When you tell someone a tree is a hazzard and it should be removed you only get paid once. It's not a repeat business situation for the tree.

When you bring out your bore tool climb the thing with a microscope in one hand and a textbook in the other, tell them you should tinker with this and that over a period of a few visits, who's really running the sales pitch here. The arborist doing that is just filling up his appointment book to line his pockets, he doesn't care about the family sleeping under the tree and their well being, (including saving them money) only about "Science" and making himself look smart along with making himself money.

The Spruce tree in question has nothing in common with 8' municipality trees.
Seems to me your science has done a 180 on common sense. Ludicrous indeed.

 

[Greenleaf]

The point is that an assessment should be a standardized, systematic approach to quantifying how much risk a tree poses. The decision to remove should not lie with the assessor. Nailsbeats, you are right, I don't have to sleep under it so I'm not going to be the one making the call. Nothing ludicrous about quantifying the risk so that a homeowner can weigh all the options, rather than having a saw wielding assessor tell them that it needs to go?

 

[clearance]

To date the tree is still standing.

As I had mentioned in an earlier post, my report to the municipality outlined that the tree is not in imminent danger of failing under normal circumstances. However there are some defects (seen both by common sense, and following the hazard tree criteria) which ultimately raises the risk level of the tree (defects+target=risk). It is now up to the owner of the tree (they are still trying to determine if it is a town tree or not) to decide what their acceptable threshold of risk is.

I just returned last week from the Urban Tree Risk Assessment course in Coquitlam. Applying all of the methodology from the course aligned with my original assessment. The tree is placed as a high risk. For those who have taken this course it was scored as follows (prob. of failure=2, size of defective part=3, target rating=3). This gives the tree a score of 8 out of 12, with 10-12 being a tree in imminent danger of failing and action would be required immediately. Keep in mind that all trees pose some level of risk unless they are stumps. So a typical healthy tree with a target will likely score a 3 without any visible defects.

Clearance, no question that utility guys are some of the most competent tree climbers around. I hold a great amount of respect for the trade. That still doesn't make you an expert on trees, nor does having an ISA certification. Anyone who wants to pretend that they know it all will ultimately be stung hard at some point in their career. Keep in mind though that all of those trees you are cutting for hydro with shiny orange dots were first looked at by an assessor who would have put the exact same process as I've used here to use to identify those trees. I have been doing assessments for hydro as well, and I would have scored this tree the same and likely given to my BC Hydro rep to make the ultimate decision. I'll run it by him to see what he'd say if it were beside the line.

Good post, I don't know it all, not even close, my trip is the same as some of your buddies, when in doubt, take it out, lots of trees around. Thank you for acknowledging my trade, I ain't the best CUA around, but I have learned from some really good guys, and I try to follow thier example.

About the assesments by B.C. Hydro, we in the field question thier calls sometimes, but very rarely do we say a tree should stay. More like "how come that p.o.s. is staying". They only have so much in thier budget, they should quit giving grants to people, and spending money on other non essentials untill they get the pine beetle disaster cleaned up (among other things), in my opinion. About the ownership of this tree, can they not get a surveyor to come over and look?

 

[capetrees]

OMG!!!Just take the thingdown!!! :angry2:

 

[treeseer]

the tree is not in imminent danger of failing ...The tree is placed as a high risk. For those who have taken this course it was scored as follows (prob. of failure=2, size of defective part=3, target rating=3). This gives the tree a score of 8 out of 12,... a typical healthy tree with a target will likely score a 3 without any visible defects.
.

Actually, a perfect big tree in a crowded place would be an 8, wouldn't it? I thought 8 was a moderate rating.

I like the 20-point system, more useful.

Did Dunster lead the Coquitlam session?

 

[Ekka]

It's good to see the usual brawls breaking out. In that spirit I'll give my answers and stir you up coz you darn well need it!

1. VTA Tree Assessment

Now, coz Dendro hasn't been to the optometrist I did some work to point a few things out.

In this pic I notice the crack actually goes to ground. This happens a lot.

There is a slight twist in the crack. My red arrows show the way the tree was twisting for that crack to to appear. The blue arrow shows the wind direction with of course some occasional swing and buffeting.

Now if you look in the background, there's a topped job with same ugly lean and bias ... much bigger hazard too by the looks so get ya azz down there for more work.

The basal flare road side (same side as crack) shows that is the windward side. On the pic below note the red area, that indicates the tension on a buttress other than the one the crack was near.

Now WTF do you want to go drilling and coring for, you wankers yet to learn VTA?

The tree is talking to you so loud and clear I can hear it 13K miles away, hazard tree evaluations my azz, text book jockeys and wankers more like it.

The tree and surroundings have SPELLED it out big time what has happened and what will continue happening.

The crack shows the tree's integrity was breached.

CAPICHE!

It is now in repair mode.

2. Blow overs and up rootings.

Rarely, and I am yet to see 1 where the soil upheaved is more than say 2.5m from the trunk. You can pretty well guarantee regardless of tree size that 3m is absolute worst case scenario. Big wad of soil goes over with tree roots dangling out of it.

If soil is wet and high winds prevail then it will be interesting to see how many tree huggers are required to hold it up.

Many trunks that break off from high wind rather than the tree blowing over occur within 6m of the ground. That is the high stress area and matches the crack on the tree

Does the windy period coincide with the wet period?

Are the strongest winds pretty much in the same direction as the blue arrow?

If you answered yes to both then would you want to live under that tree? Perhaps.

3. Recommendations

In the event of retention being desirable I offer the following advice.

3.1 Since we know that the root plate failure will occur within a 2.5m radius then we need to know how deep the soil is and what it is. Regardless of the outcome being rock, shale or clay increasing the penetration of striker roots to greater depths means opening up "cores" for them to travel. This can be done by drilling, jack hammer etc where a 3' deep core hole perhaps 1" to 2" dia filled with very coarse sand may invite roots to greater depths. One "core" per 2'2 should be sufficient. Do not put fertilizer or water down these holes, air is the secret ingredient.

3.2 Reduce wind sail effect by thinning. This will be less injurious and deforming than topping however the key is to remove branches toward the top rather than the bottom. The tree's VTA shows you the density, for the visually impaired I have broken it into 3 segments as shown in the pic below.

The top section (1) needs more thinning than section 2 and no thinning section 3. CAPICHE! I would guess that around 1/3 (33%) of the top section being section 1 branches be removed , and around 1/5 for section 2 (20%). Branches to be cut to target and equally spaced removal.

3.3 Remove the grass and have a light mulched area. The further the mulching extends from the tree the better. Mulch should be of coarse grade as it allows water to easily penetrate and provides better air circulation which roots need.

3.4 Improve soil with natural fertilizers, blood and bone, seasol etc ... work especially hard on areas outside the 2.5m dia on the windward side to increase root strength and travel.

3.5 Apply a growth regulator or retardant. Beside slowing growth they induce more root mass, a strong advantage for leaning trees.

------------------------------​

In the spirit of leaning trees I present to you this vastly larger and greater leaning tree which is a hoop pine in Brisbane, some 160'+ tall and 145 years old.

And oh yes, it has a crack.

Why is it when a scientist observes something it becomes scientific evidence, but when the layperson observes the same it's anecdotal?

 

[treeseer]

Eric your prescription for thinning--10% would do a lot-- and aeration are very good. I'd rather fill the holes with more than sand, but air is key.

Nice work with the graphics. How's that hoop pine doing?

"when a scientist observes something it becomes scientific evidence" because the people who read about that observation repeat it like scripture instead of like an observation.

 

[Ekka]

10%

Poppycock. :hmm3grin2orange: That's the sort of discount a wannbe sale offers you, I dont go out of my way for 10%.

33% is 1/3 of the top section only and that is better than topping which some have already mentioned. The top is smaller anyway and more virile, that will slow it down some.

I would say if the tree looked about as "dense" all over as the bottom section I'd be happy. Could also be camera tricks as we look up the branches seem to get more bunched up ... either way it gives the arborist something to work toward. Winds are faster higher, that top will expand in due course.

We see a lot of busted tops here, half way down that top red box (marked 1) is about the spot they bust.

That other tree is going OK I suppose, I just happened to be wandering around and saw it. Good thing about pines is they ooze sticky resin out and seem to hold off decay ... but we dont have the aggressive pine beetle here either.

I did say fill the holes with sand ... but do try to rough up the sides of those holes, a glazed potters finish is good for the art gallery but not the tree.

Maybe one of those utility arborists could show us how it's done. :monkey:

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

I see a lot of trees cut down where an autopsy reveals that the property owner paid cash to reduce their property value by taking out a manageable tree that might take 95 years to replace.

What is that bumper sticker that Tom D. likes?

"It takes a hundred years to grow a hundred year old tree"

Even if you could provide the perfect environment for a new tree to grow in, and it grew at its optimal rate, it would take 40-50 years to replace what is there.

 

[Bigus Termitius]

What is that bumper sticker that Tom D. likes?

"It takes a hundred years to grow a hundred year old tree"

Even if you could provide the perfect environment for a new tree to grow in, and it grew at its optimal rate, it would take 40-50 years to replace what is there.

The ultimate in delayed gratification? ....perhaps not.

How long does it take to grow a new family member? How long does it take to get over losing a family member? Especially to something so obviously avoidable?

Let's investigate some other interesting time tables.

I find it interesting just how little time it does take to bring one of these home wreckers down. Relatively no time.

What else? It even takes less time to make the assessment and commit. (provided one is not some over propagandized idealist)

But what is even quicker than all of this?

The few seconds it takes to come crashing down onto targets unaware if left alone to produce what??

What? What weight are we willing to place on the balance that we think can offset?

I've got a new bumper sticker idea:

It takes 100 years to replace a 100 year old tree, but it takes about an hour to bring it down and put it to better use if it's threatening me or mine! HAZARD TREES KILL!
Call your local pro human life arborist today, and let our children plant the replacement trees of their future.

Now granted, this would be more like a bumper banner, but hey, something has got to offset the fast food one liners corrupting otherwise sound minds.

 

[D Mc]

You know guys, I have been in this business a long time. I have removed more than my fair share of trees. So whereas I am a tree advocate my 660 says I'm not a "tree hugger". But I am amazed by the amount of arborphobic responses in this thread.

I have worked in many neighborhoods where virtually every tree would be considered "hazardous" based on current criteria. Hundred feet tall over residential, high target and traffic areas, etc. Be it as some of these neighborhoods were in Berkeley, California, what do you think the response of the people would have been if it was proposed that they should cut all of their trees down because it would be safer for them and their families?

We all have our own tolerances to the dangers life presents.

You live your life by the choices you make.

D Mc

 

[Bigus Termitius]

You know guys, I have been in this business a long time. I have removed more than my fair share of trees. So whereas I am a tree advocate my 660 says I'm not a "tree hugger". But I am amazed by the amount of arborphobic responses in this thread.

I have worked in many neighborhoods where virtually every tree would be considered "hazardous" based on current criteria. Hundred feet tall over residential, high target and traffic areas, etc. Be it as some of these neighborhoods were in Berkeley, California, what do you think the response of the people would have been if it was proposed that they should cut all of their trees down because it would be safer for them and their families?

We all have our own tolerances to the dangers life presents.

You live your life by the choices you make.

D Mc

I believe it is about doing what you can, when and where you can. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither was it brought down in a day.

Just because we cannot do something about all hazardous trees, doesn't mean we ought to leave them all to chance, or to those mind bent on saving them all despite their well meaning efforts and marginal success.

It is interesting to consider the efforts on all sides, despite ones opinion. Besides obvious needful removals that we all could agree on, some do save some hazardous trees from failure, others take them out before they fail.

We all pray the ones that slip through the cracks of our cohesive efforts do nothing more than destroy that which can be replaced.

As time goes on hopefully we can work together to narrow that gap from both sides.

I always keep in mind that a hazard tree removed doesn't fall and is often put to better use, and a newly planted tree better cared for with modern (and future for that matter) techniques stands a better chance at producing aesthetic and functional results far superior and safer than what no longer had any business looming.

 

[Bigus Termitius]

Maybe one of those utility arborists could show us how it's done. :monkey:

I like your ideas, obviously some of the best yet. You have shown a fine example of what is possible when all goes well.

However, there is no sense in digging holes and taking chances with a tree like this, IMHO. Past success doesn’t insure you, not to mention it seems your example is in a more acceptable location.

If I'm going to dig a hole it will be to plant the proper tree for the proper place. And I can show you how that is done. I’ve been planting trees since I was a kid with some success as I explored the results from 20 some year old efforts just this weekend.

The all too convenient misconceptions about utility arborists are that we are ignorant hacks and could care less about trees. Well, I’d say to a great extent from what I’ve seen and surmised that, historically speaking, we got it honest.

Howbeit many of us love trees for all they are and would rather promote this attitude right along with education. I deal with landowners as an uninvited guest daily. That takes a few skills to overcome obvious objections as you might imagine. It’s a member owned cooperative here, so peaceful negotiations are paramount to production. I find that besides a professional appearance and attitude, educating the landowner and expressing a genuine care for the trees that must be dealt with is crucial to building positive lasting relationships.

My point of contact with the electric company, a forestry and right of way specialist, feels the same way. He just did plant 1000 trees on his own time. He’s a good steward on and off the job. He’s a mentor with 25 years in the industry, again, both on and off the ROW.

As I go I’m constantly learning more as I’m committed to the industry in all areas. I learn on the job, from my personal studies, and from my peers. This forum has been a wealth of information with regard to what is good, bad, and ugly within the current paradigm of International Arboriculture. I’m raising a family up into it as well. It gets into your blood as you well know.

My perspective is that the utility sector needs professionals to turn things around for the better. I do purpose to be a part of that.

So cut us some slack Ekka, we aren’t all ignorant hacks because we don’t see the use in saving high risk trees with their crosshairs on high value and irreplaceable targets.

I do what is best to salvage as many trees as I can in a days time given their circumstances, but I certainly know what needs to be done when they pose an unacceptable threat.

Sure, aesthetically, despite my artistic efforts, my patients are disfigured relative to the norm, perhaps ugly…..but they live and produce that which more than offsets those that are no longer. Aesthetics, or lack thereof, shouldn’t be the standard by which we UAs are judged. We save a lot of productive trees despite how they look. If looks be the standard with all things where would some of us be?

:greenchainsaw:

Yet how many productive trees are discarded at the hand of residential arborists based on either the aesthetical opinion or simple lack of desire for the tree on the part of the landowner? Wherein can one sector judge another?

One prunes for aesthetics and health, but often does some things that they’d rather not do to please the customer. Another prunes to allow for what’s needful for the coexistence of man and tree, also doing sometimes what we'd rather not. It’s an unpopular cusp that we ride, but many do their best to prune with health and aesthetics in mind for many reasons as well. We have to take what we know and apply that to many unique situations and decide what is best overall, wherein neither extreme is acceptable.

I find any approach in saving such a tree as the one in question to be an unacceptable and irresponsible extreme. Yet, on the other hand, I find excellent efforts such as you outlined very acceptable and responsible for similar trees in other locations and situations.

Perhaps it is difficult to minimize the emotional factors involved here, but I’d rather error on the side in the interest of human life, than that clouded by monetary, propagandized, and/or egotistical judgment.

Even so, could it be that some of this same sort of judgment strives to pile utility arborists into one convenient stake? Likely.

In which case no one has a monopoly on ignorance.

 

[treeseer]

Ekka I agree with the <= 33% off zone 1 and a little off elsewhere, which would be about 10% overall.

Bigus, good points, but your perception of risk tolerance is way different as a utility guy. I've been out of utility for 30 years so I couldn't advise on trees/utilities very well, as I have taken on-- for good and for bad-- a residential arborist viewpoint, where the owner has a higher risk tolerance.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

simple lack of desire for the tree on the part of the landowner?

Here we come back to the owner being the final decision maker.

My problem with a lot of the replies here is "take it down" so many want to convince the potential client that it is a high risk.

The original poster was called in to do a risk assessment, if this is what you are doing, then to say that the risk is higher then a normal tree is truthful. To say it is more likely to come down in adverse conditions is all so truthful.

There is no indication of deary, no indication of compromised root plate (in the pictures), the throw looks old and stabilized. The tree has experienced high winds in the past two seasons without further throwing.

All trees can fail under the wrong conditions, should they all be cut down because they are big enough to fall on the house?

I'll recommend a tree come down if the defect will only get worse and increase the risk of failure over time, but I cannot see that here.

If all you do is walk up and say cut it down, then you are not consulting, but make a sales pitch.

 

[Bigus Termitius]

Here we come back to the owner being the final decision maker.

My problem with a lot of the replies here is "take it down" so many want to convince the potential client that it is a high risk.

The original poster was called in to do a risk assessment, if this is what you are doing, then to say that the risk is higher then a normal tree is truthful. To say it is more likely to come down in adverse conditions is all so truthful.

There is no indication of deary, no indication of compromised root plate (in the pictures), the throw looks old and stabilized. The tree has experienced high winds in the past two seasons without further throwing.

All trees can fail under the wrong conditions, should they all be cut down because they are big enough to fall on the house?

I'll recommend a tree come down if the defect will only get worse and increase the risk of failure over time, but I cannot see that here.

If all you do is walk up and say cut it down, then you are not consulting, but make a sales pitch.

I've come across many potential customers that would like to hire me on the weekends to remove trees that aren't threatening anything and in apparently good health. The reasons vary. I'm talking big beautiful backyard trees shading the house and yard with nothing wrong...even some big enough and close enough to fall on the house given the right extreme conditions, yet not at all threatening otherwise.

This is where even I cringe and hesitate. This is what I meant by the question you've quoted.

It does come down to the landowner, whether we like that sometimes or not.

I wouldn't have to twist anyone’s arm or mind to convince most anyone that this tree is in fact high risk, this has been established.

I would think that someone would have to work pretty hard to minimize the risk perception and convince the homeowner to keep it. That to me is neither more or less consulting, but a sales pitch. A horse of a different color, but a horse nonetheless.

In reality, perhaps it is all a consultive sales pitch according to one's perception with respect to ideals and levels of acceptable risk.

In this instance, in step with your comments here, in consulting it is also truthful to say that more than likely when this one does come down it will hit the house.

I would agree that it appears stabilized. I don't think that anyone here believes that neither butterfly nor bird is going to be the straw that breaks this camel's back.

When it breaks and it will, it will most likely be thanks to the winds that threw it in the first place. All too often the risk of failure increases over time at one rate or another. We hope it gives some warning signs, many do not.

It's simply the target that condemns this tree more than anything, obviously.

I hope the basement is finished, furnished, and well used, if nothing else in high winds. I will pray for their safety, if they do keep it, and I hope that it is not at an eventual unacceptable cost.

 

[tree MDS]

File,file,tink,tink,file,file,tink..tink. Lol.

 

[nytreeman]

Yes ultimately the homeowner does have the final decision and heres some pics I had posted in another thread a couple of falls ago. A 100 ft norway spruce I had warned a repeat customer about, no signs of rot from observation,giant buttressed,root flair,looked like a very strong tree but the tree had a very old,mostly healed crack,and even striking it with a sledge it didn't sound like it was,very,if at all hollow,but near the ground you could see it was seeping water after the rains and it had a good lean into the prevailing (west) wind but still it was aimed directly at the house and after observing many ants on and around the tree,I recommended removal and did so each time I had worked for her but she refused saying "she loved her giant tree",well then we got the tail end of a hurricane coming from the southeast and.......
http://www.arboristsite.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=50527&d=1178289383
http://www.arboristsite.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=50528&d=1178289427
http://www.arboristsite.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=50529&d=1178289478
http://www.arboristsite.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=50531&d=1178289621
http://www.arboristsite.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=50532&d=1178290220
http://www.arboristsite.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=70015&stc=1&d=1209406485

 

[tree MDS]

Dude, thats awesome, just what I was daydreaming about earlier, I was thinking: wont that crack end up like a frost crack that will never heal, and what about ice and water getting into it? wont that cause some sort of brown fungal rot over time (as that what trees in the pine family get) and bugs enter?? and then...nice posting there bud, and again,file,file,tink,tink. Evedently her giant tree did'nt love her too much, lol.