Tree-to-Ground Guying

[John464]

Removal is not a reasonable option. That from a certified arborist?

The tree looks like it may be a removal. Hard to tell from those pics, but if a removal is necessary a certified arborist can determine whether it should be removed. As you know, one of the steps in becoming a certfied arborist is to be able to recommend an appropriate removal.

I know your motto is to save all trees, but when a tree has been neglected, the point of no return can happen. This may be the case. Especially if your method of guying by acheiving the proper angle intrudes beyong your clients property.

Selling a client on saving the tree, because you aren't equipped with the machinery is a disservice to your client. If she really is reading this thread. I suggest her to recieve two more opinions from two other certfied arborists. Heck, these two other certified arborists may actually own a tree service with a chipper, trucks, loader, stump grinder and men? Being able to provide the full spectrum of recommendations is truly what makes someone an arborist.

 

[John464]

As for hazard, many people are willing to assume more risk then others. Any tree can fail under the wrong conditions. As long as the client understands thaat there is stil an elevated risk, and the treatment is is just to mitigate the risk, not eliminate, then where is the problm. It is their propeerty

mit·i·gate (mĭt'ĭgāt') To moderate (a quality or condition) in force or intensity

It is their property correct, but should something happen are they going to accept full responsibility or seek coverage?

Now we are getting into the legal aspects of this. This varies by state/ district. This also varies by what the homeowner's insurance policy reads. Guy wouldnt be liable since he would sign off on only mitigating risk not removing risk. Therefore, the terms of negligence you can bet will thoroughly be evaluated by an insurance inspector who will then pass that documented info to the big short attorneys who are employed by and represent the insurance company. This can go both ways. I've seen it happen quite a few times. If you attempt at saving an unstable tree, you are admitting the awareness of the defect. Should this be discovered the action taken was not appropriate, well...homeowners.. I hope you have broad shoulders.

 

[Dadatwins]

I wonder if there is a way to modify this system to work on that problem. I keep trying to think of a minimal invassive "splint" like we talked about in Richmond to attach.
http://www.treetrainer.com/images/roy01151.jpg

 

[treeseer]

I wonder if there is a way to modify this system to work on that problem. I keep trying to think of a minimal invassive "splint" like we talked about in Richmond to attach.
http://www.treetrainer.com/images/roy01151.jpg

Dada I did not think while talking to you that the splint you had in mind would be perpendicular to the trunk. I can't visualize that on such a big tree.

John, I totally disagree with that "admitting defect" thing--nothing valid about that. You are admitting that a tree is defective when you prune it--so every tree is defective! Better run and hide! This tree's defect is not a result of neglect, and the tree is not proven to be "unstable".

re opinions from certified arborists--the exam is only 11% on risk. not every ca is competent at assessing risk. Also you are confusing recommendations from a consultant and sales of tree services from a tree service. Like comparing apples and Kevorkian coconuts.

I'll get better pictures tomorrow.

 

[John464]

John, I totally disagree with that "admitting defect" thing--nothing valid about that. You are admitting that a tree is defective when you prune it--so every tree is defective! Better run and hide! This tree's defect is not a result of neglect, and the tree is not proven to be "unstable".

you don't have to agree with it.
we are not talking about corrective pruning or maitenance. we are talking about proper management of a tree with a cavity and cracks hanging near a house. Big difference.Lets compare apples as you say.

If the result of improper maintenance due to failed preservation causes property damage, the homeowner will be in the middle of an insurance dispute after the adjuster investigates. I've even seen the homeowner go after the arborist in a cabled, live but delcining tree , because the insurance denied a $147,000 claim. Long story short. Arborist was not held responsible and the homeowner lost in court to the insurance co's big wig attorney. Homeowner had to foot the entire repair and got dropped from insurance policy. They also had trouble finding another insurance company to provide them with a new homeowner's policy. I have been working for insurance companies for many years doing storm work. You are smart enough to know that insurance companies are in the business of taking in money, not paying it out. If they can find a way to prove negligence, they will. By you installing a tree guy that stretches out in two directions with a span of 50ft that may not work, both you and the homeowner are understanding their is some serious faults in the said tree.

Guy, lets tell your client about both sides of the coin here. This is not a standard cable job. Nor is this a standard guying job. This is a unique situation that challenges risk.

I am not saying your method will not work. I cant really tell without inspecting the tree in person. If it were me id take it back to below the weak structures or remove it all together.

Good luck, to the both of you.

 

[treeseer]

Thanks for the reply. I respect your experience and your opinion. However, I wonder about the logic in your basic premise:

improper maintenance due to failed preservation

I don't think that every time a tree that has been worked on fails, that event is caused by improper maintenance. If the people who plan and perform the maintenance work take due care, and the work is done to a high standard, they should not fear some insurance company taking aim at them. I'll take a big risk taking my car on the road today--are you advising me to stay home?

Also, if I whacked the tree off above the defect, and that accelerated the rot in the stem, and that then failed, I would be MORE liable than if I had practiced more conservative, and responsible, arboriculture.

The below is from page 28 here: http://www.treecareindustry.org/PDFs/TCI_Mag_Feb08_web1.pdf

"ANSI standards are also recognized as the ultimate authority in the United States civil court system. In our country it seems that anyone can be sued for anything, so there’s no use in worrying about going to court, only in losing! There’s no need to fear losing a lawsuit if you have read the standards and know your work complies. A tree “hazard” is defined as a level of tree risk greater than the owner is willing to tolerate.

“Hazard trees” are managed by lessening—reducing, mitigating--the risk they pose, either by removal or by arboricultural treatments, to a level that the owner accepts. Reducing or supporting defective branches, propping or bracing defective trunks, guying trees with defective root systems; all these and more arboricultural activities can be specified and practiced free of liability concerns, if they are ANSI-compliant, standard operating procedures.

imho.

 

[John464]

I don't think that every time a tree that has been worked on fails, that event is caused by improper maintenance. imho.

i didnt say every tree fails. The proper maintenance is years late from what the photos display. Has your watchful eye been in this property in say the last 5 years? Why didn't this lady have you consult the property back then? The proceedure that you invision may be a good proceedure for someone not willing to lose or disfigure the tree, however, it may be pass the point of your assistance in providing enough risk mitigation with the home and insurance in the picture. I personally wouldnt experiment with a technique that could turn into a tiresome ordeal. If the tree was out in the yard, sure, that would be a great task to be a part of. I have never guyed a tree in that type of health that high up in the crown and I have not read any material that outlines such. Have you? If there was documentation and or photos you wouldnt be asking us if we had any. So far, you're the bravest of the bunch.

where does ANSI state your method? a guy for a defective root system is not equivelant to what you suggest here.

 

[randyg]

Cut the tree down already!!!

Clients do not have a high risk tolerance--baby on board, with all that caution many new parents have.

...

Let's see. . .you are worried about a northeast wind putting it on the house. If you are in the same hemisphere as I am, that means the tree is not even shading the house right? Clients are aware of increased risk of portion of tree above defect being unstable. To accept increased risk of property damage is one thing. This is a building in which parents with a youngster live. To accept increased risk to that child is unacceptable. I challenge those parents to do everything in their power to protect that child from harm. To choose the life of A TREE over the well being of a child, takes a moral compass that does not point north.

Respectfully,
randy

 

[treeseer]

where does ANSI state your method? a guy for a defective root system is not equivelant to what you suggest here.

Good point, John, if you are talking about the bmp's. but they do not say guying to the ground to mitigate a trunk defect is wrong. I admit it is not common, but responses in the other 3 forums i posted this in cite some examples.

the rules here forbid naming other forums. the ansi standards say nothing about defects.

 

[kennertree]

Been thinking a little about cabling to a pole then guying the pole. If you go this route, or something similar it seems like it would need to be cabled above and below the defect. If it was only cabled above the defect its going to allow everything below the defect to move quite a bit and what is above the defect isnt going to move at all. If its cabled above and below it seems it would allow for more distribution of movement.

 

[treeseer]

pic 1 is the base. 1 root with a little rot, 1 with a burl. Overall good nchorage. gravel will be raked away and replaced with mulch.

pic 2 is the defect--exactly 50% of the circumference, spiraling, and 10' long. heartrot is not a concern so no i am not drilling it. Cracks are a major concern--i can stick my handsaw blade all the way in at one point.

probed around, nothing punky in there. i can also stick my handsaw between the woundwood and the xlem on both edges of the wound. xylem is very hard and very tough, no idea what caused the wound.

pic 3 is me standing where the proposed ground anchor would go. my TIP is just under where I would install the cable. I will go look at the tree on a windy day, to see how--or if-- the trunk moves.

Again, extreme reduction instead of support is a last resort. I may reduce a few tips depending on confidence in any support system. There is way too much solid and valuable tree there for the owners to talk about removal.

 

[jomoco]

I can see that you are pretty determined to cable this tree to the ground.

If you decide to do it, you might consider installing an inline compression spring on the wire rope itself to mitigate shockloading in high wind conditions, kind of an inline shock absorber with a limited throw.

If the tree does fail at some point in the future, it may keep the broken out section off the clients house.

I believe these folks carry them in stock, I suggest the 500 lb range inline compression spring might suit your application.

http://www.induscowirerope.com/

Good luck Treeseer,

jomoco

 

[treeseer]

I can see that you are pretty determined to cable this tree to the ground.

Unfortunately, I see no other acceptable options.

Thanks for the link; allowing movement while providing support, that's what is needed.

 

[Dadatwins]

Are you using steel or dynamic? Dynamic non-invassive and will allow some flexibilty but probably does not have the strenth of steel. . If steel, will you choose strength to hold entire tree or just top? I also wonder if 2 cables set at 45 degrees of each other would be better than 1.

 

[treeseer]

you might consider installing an inline compression spring on the wire rope itself to mitigate shockloading in high wind conditions, kind of an inline shock absorber with a limited throw.
I believe these folks carry them in stock, I suggest the 500 lb range inline compression spring

jomoco I saw no springs in their product line, and I would want more than 500#. Snazzy website tho.

Dada I agree 2 may be better than one, but would you put them in the same attachment point on the stem? And if we can't find a suitable spring, should it be installed with slack?

 

[Dadatwins]

Dada I agree 2 may be better than one, but would you put them in the same attachment point on the stem? And if we can't find a suitable spring, should it be installed with slack?

I have never seen a support cable for any pole or tower installed with slack. If going with steel cable, some sort of spring system should be installed. The dynamic system has some built in flex to it and additional rubber bounce inserts to add flexibilty. The dynamic system could be placed at the same spot since there is no drilling involved. It is recomended that it be placed near a spot on the trunk that will help it stay up like a crotch so it does not slide down the trunk. If going with steel I would guess you could attach 2 cables to a single through bolt eye and set them at a 45 degree angle. Since this cable is basically being used as an 'insurance policy' to offer support I would think the less invassive the better.

 

[D Mc]

Treeseer, After seeing the picture of the entire tree, I can certainly understand your desire to save it.

I am going to try to post a picture of a different style of brace that I think might have merit. Please understand I have not used this type of brace so have no first hand experience with its properties.

It seems to me that with the shortness of the cables it would be less prone to shock loading. Also the horizontal bar would transfer a good deal of the stress to a stronger part of the tree.

I only drew in one top cable (above the injury) but there could be more if required. One of those industrial strength screw anchors would make the installation pretty painless.

D Mc

 

[treeseer]

D Mc, that looks really experimental. mebbe we can talk about that in australia; see what they think.

 

[D Mc]

D Mc, that looks really experimental. mebbe we can talk about that in australia; see what they think.

Treeseer, my trips to Australia seem to have been plagued by stormy seas so my discussions will stay here for the time being.

As for being experimental, no doubt; but it is a guy system used frequently and successfully in areas outside the tree world. Enough so I believe the physics and force vectors could be researched to provide a properly weighted system.

In your post (#32) pic 1 where you show the root flare. There is some black sooty stuff that looks like Ganoderma lucidum? I am guessing in the back of your mind, for the future, you are not ruling out total tree failure? And that is the reasoning for incorporating a guy system that not only protects the top but also the remainder of the tree?

D Mc

 

[woodchux]

I'm quoting myself! LOL.

It looks to me that any anchoring system that goes to the ground is going to increase stress at the defect as the tree moves in the wind. Another factor to consider is the stress caused at the defect by 'twisting' forces on the crown due to wind. A single anchor does very little to reduce twist.

With an anchor going to the ground when a large gust of wind hits the top of the crown there may be forces generated at the defect that are even higher than if there had been no guying at all due a 'lever' effect.

I've got to agree with Treeco on this one. Any tree to ground guying will do more harm than good.