preserve this willow?

[John Paul Sanborn]

My $ would be on the first node out from the fork cuts.

My limited experience agrees, the smaller the diameter to about Shigo's 1 inch Rule of Thumb is best on mature trees. I've had small mulberry work with smaller dia. but on larger trees they usually diae back to the next node.

 

[teamtree]

looks like a decent job all in all

we are dealing with similar issues with a local government entity. we say it needs to be cut they say trim it

what do you do? we trimmed it

asking lawyers to draw up release from liability or something to that effect

is anyone using such a legal form or release from liability?

 

[squad143]

I don't know how to calculate the load he is trying to support, however a 4x4 vertical post of Douglas Fir or Southern Pine will support a load of 8000 lbs as long as the post is under 8' long. By utilizing only 1 post there is no lateral stability though.

 

[treeseer]

By utilizing only 1 post there is no lateral stability though.

It looks to me like those buttresses add lateral stability.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

I d give that a 10 out of 10 on hazard tree grade. Esp if that is a sidewalk below it (target). Cut it down , grind it and replant a w willow if everyone objects. Before long it will be right back up there w no cavity.

There's the image would have been handy in the opening post.

Reminds me of a post on the buzz where I may have hit a nerve about removing a dogwood. Some trees shouldn't be saved. And in cases like this, even a photo can tell enough of the story without being there in person.

With the lean of that tree, and that bad of a defect near the base, it's a certain removal from my point of view. I'd remove it, or walk away from it.

 

[squad143]

It looks to me like those buttresses add lateral stability.

Somewhat perhaps. To get true lateral stability in only one direction your would require a 2 post system with postive connections between a header/sole plate and the post with x bracing. Regardless, unless I was a structural engineer or had a system desgined by one, I would not insert the post. As others have been saying, it could be a liability issue if something did go wrong.

We (Toronto) just had a willow come down yesterday and kill a 65 year old woman and injure another who was 78. Apparently the tree had been dead for some time. Different situation, but tragic none the less.

http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/249936

 

[treeseer]

Any tree can be a liability issue if something goes wrong. How we handle it determines how exposed we are to that liability.

With the lean of that tree, and that bad of a defect near the base, it's a certain removal from my point of view. I'd remove it, or walk away from it.

Mario, that may have been right for you to do, given your limits (and we all have limits) of knowing the arboricultural options. Anyone assessing tree risk cannot do a competent job if their vision is tunneled on the defects. Given OTG's close understanding of the tree, and actually being there, and being able to monitor and care for it, it looks like he did the right thing. This case is not related to dead trees falling; different situation entirely.

A “defect” has been defined as a visible sign that a tree has the potential to fail. However, since every tree has the potential to fail, this definition is meaningless. The critical questions of how visible, and how much potential, remain. Any harmless feature of a tree that looks unfamiliar to the inexperienced observer can be called a defect that creates a “hazard tree”, defined as a tree with an unacceptable level of risk to a target. The question is, what can be done about it? All risks can be lowered (abated, mitigated, lessened), but **when arboricultural options are not carefully considered and clearly communicated, the owners cannot make an informed decision.** Quickly labeling “defects” and “hazards” can lead to the needless removal of valuable trees, when more conservative actions may have been more reasonable.
Basic tree risk assessment involves an objective, systematic review of the tree’s condition (good and bad), the site, and the exposure of targets. Deciding what action to take depends on responsibility for followup care, which OTG has taken on.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

I don't know how to calculate the load he is trying to support, however a 4x4 vertical post of Douglas Fir or Southern Pine will support a load of 8000 lbs as long as the post is under 8' long. By utilizing only 1 post there is no lateral stability though.

That is if the load is on the axis of the structural member, from what I see there is side loading at the top which would require buttressing along the line of fall. Perhaps midway up where the beam would bow?

 

[M.D. Vaden]

Any tree can be a liability issue if something goes wrong. How we handle it determines how exposed we are to that liability.
Mario, that may have been right for you to do, given your limits (and we all have limits) of knowing the arboricultural options. Anyone assessing tree risk cannot do a competent job if their vision is tunneled on the defects. Given OTG's close understanding of the tree, and actually being there, and being able to monitor and care for it, it looks like he did the right thing. This case is not related to dead trees falling; different situation entirely.

A “defect” has been defined as a visible sign that a tree has the potential to fail. However, since every tree has the potential to fail, this definition is meaningless. The critical questions of how visible, and how much potential, remain. Any harmless feature of a tree that looks unfamiliar to the inexperienced observer can be called a defect that creates a “hazard tree”, defined as a tree with an unacceptable level of risk to a target. The question is, what can be done about it? All risks can be lowered (abated, mitigated, lessened), but **when arboricultural options are not carefully considered and clearly communicated, the owners cannot make an informed decision.** Quickly labeling “defects” and “hazards” can lead to the needless removal of valuable trees, when more conservative actions may have been more reasonable.
Basic tree risk assessment involves an objective, systematic review of the tree’s condition (good and bad), the site, and the exposure of targets. Deciding what action to take depends on responsibility for followup care, which OTG has taken on.

To a degree yes, but it does not mean we are wrong by not being there. An estimator could look at my truck in a photo if I totalled it, and see enough via an image to know that just on that alone, the truck is not worth a rebuild.

At least on this willow, we see that the large defect is not on the side its leaning too - correct?

The big vertical defect meets another defect where a wound did not callous over entirely.

Not only is is a "crack" looking wound, but it has depth to the cavity. Wood is missing from the interior of the base, the most important part.

Who will dispute that the decay reaches into the roots?

The tree is a weak species.

The weight appears to be opposite of the critical weakness. (If you were going to break a wood closet rod on your knee, would you want a "half way" saw cut in it to be toward your knee, or away from it? Same basic concept).

There is a lot of apparent real negatives stacked against that tree. And then consider its location. Location, location, location - not just a real estate importance matter.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

The prop stick adds liability and doesn't look like does anything to make the tree stronger.
Unless you have done some engineering estimates on the tree and the support system, it's better off left undone. When you add a system, you are admitting the tree needs it. If it fails, that support will be called into question, whether the system was inadequate or not.
I'd have been happier to see the reduction work, followed by more reductions in the future, and planting another tree very close to fill in, while the staged removal continues.
There should be some measurements and pictures, as well as written descriptions of any work that was done.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

The prop stick adds liability and doesn't look like does anything to make the tree stronger.

Another good suggestion. Similar to another post you may have seen elsewhere today.

Adding the support post is like advertising suspicion or knowledge that the tree can be hazardous.

 

[squad143]

from what I see there is side loading at the top which would require buttressing along the line of fall

Hard to tell from a picture.

"The prop stick adds liability and doesn't look like does anything to make the tree stronger.
Unless you have done some engineering estimates on the tree and the support system, it's better off left undone. When you add a system, you are admitting the tree needs it. If it fails, that support will be called into question, whether the system was inadequate or not." - Mike Mass

Could not have said it better Mike.

 

[OTG BOSTON]

wow, lots of activity here

lots of wrong assumptions too. I appreciate the feed back and will continue to update.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

lots of wrong assumptions too. I appreciate the feed back and will continue to update.

No kidding - its hard to tell what's what.

In photos, it looks in the close-up like the gap is on the backside of the lean.

But in another image - it looks like it could be on the frontside of the lean.

 

[GottaCut]

Ofcourse, I shouldnt say so without being able to see the tree in person....I would have cut the hazard down. How much time and money has now been spent on a tree that (again based on photo's only) is destined for failure. Now as others have suggested in a back yard or some area that can be cordoned off I see this tree as a great experiment, and a testament to ones arboricultural ability if it is saved or failure is postponed as a direct result of your efforts. From a parents perspective I have to say nevermind the missing shade if you did cut it down cause I wouldnt let my kids play anywhere near the fall zone of that tree by looking at that gaping crack, matched with the puny, ill-thought brace.

Personally I see whats been done as a waste of tax money, and I hope your business is incorporated for your own sake. Also, I find your nonchalant manner and jest about "the prop is just a "prop" quite disturbing.

 

[kennertree]

Is the prop made out of treated wood? Treated wood can be harmful.

 

[treeseer]

Treated wood can be harmful.

So maybe they should put a sign on it: "DANGER. Do not eat wood. Contains arsenic"

Untreated wood is harmful when it rots and breaks.

 

[OTG BOSTON]

Personally I see whats been done as a waste of tax money, and I hope your business is incorporated for your own sake. Also, I find your nonchalant manner and jest about "the prop is just a "prop" quite disturbing.

Obviously you haven't read the entire thread:notrolls2:

What I find disturbing is people who come on here and post the same stuff thats already been posted 10 times in the thread.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Contains arsenic"

Not any more, it was "outlawed" due to leaching.

 

[kennertree]

So maybe they should put a sign on it: "DANGER. Do not eat wood. Contains arsenic"

Untreated wood is harmful when it rots and breaks.

I meant it can be harmful to the tree.