trees good or not so good

[priest]

We're doing a little hurricane work on the Gulf Coast, and there has been many a house that has taken a good solid whack from a tree or two.
The problem as I see it is that many of these neighborhoods were carved out of pre-existing wooded areas. The trees were thinned, leaving only the "good trees". This resulted in yards with tall, skinny trees that developed in the protection of others, largely unexposed to the elements.
So when a friendly little 150 mph wind comes along, they succumb with indifference to the obstacles beneath.
And when a person's house has been made uninhabitable by falling trees, they tend to develop a phobia of other trees near the house. As a responsible arborist, how does one make the judgement call as to which trees within reach of the house are to remain, and which are next to wreck havoc in the next hurricane. From what I've seen, there are no guarantees that the healthiest of trees will remain standing under these conditions. I've seen some of the most beautful and robust oaks laying horizontal on a house with enough damge that the house may have to be bulldozed. But, for better or worse, I have been advising against removal of many trees.
Any thoughts?

 

[M.D. Vaden]

If reminds me of Portland. The same practice happens.

Interestingly, even some trees that never lost part of a protective group have gone over in a storm when the soil was wet enough. Not too often, but occasionally.

For that reason, if I owned a house around trees that should be solid as rock, I'd still rent a motel room or stay somewhere else during a storm.

 

[treeseer]

Priest, good of you to have some tree sense in the midst of post-storm arborphobia. download these:

http://www.treesaregood.com/treecare/tree_values.aspx

http://www.treesaregood.com/treecare/tree_Benefits.aspx

and have a few to hand out. Download this:

http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/uf/utrmm/index.htm

learn it, and use it. People are hysterical now but most will regret removing healthy trees that stood up to the storms jsut becasue they're there.

 

[CoreyTMorine]

Clear cut it.

If people want to live in a heavily wooded area they need to build a house in the woods (so that they can monitor construction and make sure that the trees are not damaged by it) or buy a house that has been in the woods for many years. But these new developments, where trees have been left for asthetics are dangerous. the root systems have all been compromised by construction. never once have i seen a development go up where the developer hired an arborist to do a tree preservation plan.

Much of my work comes from situations like this, not something i would have choosen, its just that lots of people hire me to remove the dead and dying trees around their new homes.

on the other hand, compromised or not, i see almost as many tree failures in older neighborhoods. so maybe the odds of getting your house squished do not increase in these new developements.

price wise, to residential logging, stumping, sitework, reinstallation can run what 10 or 20k$. kind of steep, so maybe people just want to have you remove the worst trees for a couple thousand and reasure them that the remainder are pretty safe.

i'm ranting, sorry, this is something i spend much time wrestling with.

 

[treeseer]

Clear cut it.
never once have i seen a development go up where the developer hired an arborist to do a tree preservation plan.

Then you are not looking very hard, and the local arborists are not selling that service very well. It is a tough sell to get builders on line, but some will understand that it makes dollars and $en$e to have a preservation plan.

people hire me to remove the dead and dying trees around their new homes.

Define "dying".

i see almost as many tree failures in older neighborhoods. so maybe the odds of getting your house squished do not increase in these new developements.

You just contradicted yourself. There goes your point.

people just want to have you remove the worst trees .

Define "worst". Every tree carries risk, so the crucial part comes when the tree guy judges how risky it is; will it likely hold up to a category 1, 2, 3, 4? If the tree guy cannot apply the time to take a careful look, good trees get cut down and bad trees are left.

Then there is the middle ground, mitigation, where all the fun happens. Can the tree be made safer by pruning, disease control, root invigoration?
Then do it. post-storm there is not a lot of time for thorough PHC, but at least the pruning part can get done while the gear is on site.

 

[smokechase II]

priest:
It can be considered scientific fact that trees in a dense stand protect each other from wind. Strength in numbers.
So, if you've thinned and are left with scattered tall trees next to your home that is in a hurricane prone area. Accept that fact that you will be standing next to your former home saying, "I never thought it would happen to me".
Given time, it will.
Leave trees that have significant leans away from structures. Replant with different species, maybe ones that don't grow so tall or keep others well pruned.
Homes and trees can mix. It is just that one has to think and plan and act.

 

[treeseer]

Accept that fact that you will be standing next to your former home saying, "I never thought it would happen to me".
Given time, it will. .

"fact' and "will" imply certainty, but there is nothing certain about the weather.

These are tree-by-tree decisions; it's seldom that a case can be made for an urban clearcut.

"Homes and trees can mix. It is just that one has to think and plan and act."

Now you're talking.

 

[CoreyTMorine]

Treeseer

Treeseer,
When I preface or close a post with a statement like “I’m ranting, this is something I spend much time wrestling with.” It is an attempt on my part to distinguish the post as being non argumentative. By argument I mean “4. A statement of fact for or against a point. 5 an address or composition intended to convince or persuade.” My little blurb was only a snapshot of my thought process, not a conclusion or even a working theory. I posted it to see if other tree folks were thinking along similar lines. I’m glad you took the time to illustrate your response, in the future I will be more clear as to the nature of my posts.

I think firestorms are a waste of time and energy. We spend time figuring out how to get the other guy, when we could be sharing useful information.

Rather than dissect a blurb it might be more beneficial to take the opportunity and post a counterpoint; i.e. “if there are not many arborists doing preservation plans maybe there is a market out there that hasn’t been tapped yet… lets see, how can we go about getting to it and convincing developers to buy it… as Corey said there are as many tree failures in well established neighborhoods as new ones…” You said as much, but it felt like a personal attack, the way you chopped my little post all up.

I find that if a post has a positive spin it is more likely to be fruitful. Maybe if I didn’t feel like you wanted to fight, we could be talking about how to best implement a tree prez plan, and how to convince people its important. That would be a useful thread; one that could be called up in searches again and again, perhaps the beginning of a whole new standard in construction.

 

[treeseer]

Sorry Correy that I responded in a way that you do not want to respond to. That snapshot into your thought process included some exaggerations, which are not a good basis for conclusions. That is why I singled them out. In your previous post you made the blanket recommendation to clear-cut storm-damaged areas. And now you're saying that you don't want to argue? How can anyone not argue with that insanity?


I'll try to be more constructive about trees and construction, like maybe recommending that if you want to sell preservation work you may want to get familiar with the book reviewed here:

" LITERAL RESOURCES

After publishing The Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas, which was reviewed in the last issue, the International Society of Arboriculture commissioned Nelda Matheny and James Clark to write Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development.

We’ve all heard the arguments for NOT preserving trees near construction, so in their Introduction the authors provide reasoned responses to make when you hear the following:
“Too Costly!” It’s a trade-off, with costs typically recovered by faster sales, higher prices, and enduring value.
“Over-regulation!” We all have a right to life, and the clean air and water provided by trees are a prerequisite for life. Courts uphold reasonable environmental standards. Where staff is trained to fairly enforce them, needed flexibility can be allowed.
“It’s just a tactic to stop us from building!” If a community holds tree preservation as an important goal and clearly defines its expectations to developers, then tree preservation simply becomes another aspect to project planning. Once a project (and its tree preservation plan) is approved, both development team and public agency staff must act in an honest, cooperative manner.
“We can’t control our subcontractors.” If following a tree preservation program is made a part of a subcontractor’s contract (with penalties for noncompliance), then adherence will follow. For best results, developers should educate subcontractors prior to the start of work.
“It’ll makes our whole community too expensive to develop!” To be practical, projects with mature trees sell quicker at a higher price, and remain more attractive to buyers.
“We don’t know how to preserve trees.” It requires commitment and the application of specialized knowledge, just like engineering and architecture. It is for this reason that a consulting arborist should be a part of the development team.
The next complaint often heard is, “We already pay a landscape designer”. Most landscape architects get no training in tree preservation. At NCSU in particular, how to handle existing trees is not part of the curriculum. LA’s typically have too many other responsibilities to also take on tree preservation.

The rest of the Guide lays out the entire process of preservation in a reader-friendly fashion. It first reviews tree biology and the means and methods of development, then simply, step-by-step, walks the reader through the process of successfully preserving trees. Two tips stand out as especially useful:

“Brush shall be chipped and placed in the tree protection zone to a depth of six inches”
This cheap and easy step can save more trees than any other. Even outside the protection fence, a thick layer of mulch prevents compaction better than any other method. Whether turf or shrubs are going in later, they will be easier to install and need less replacement if the soil is protected. It also retains “an ecologically functional land base capable of growing trees well into the future”.

“Adjust finish grades so that the pavement section is built on top of the natural grade, using a ‘no-dig’ design.” Since roads and sidewalks are safer when water runs off faster, this tip makes sense both for tree survival and safe travel. Use of geotextile fabrics to reduce compaction and prevent the subbase from mixing into the soil also preserves trees.

Tree preservation is a job that everybody wants done, but too often it fails for lack of information. This Guide, available from the ISA, [email protected], is the best tool for getting the job done, and keeping the canopy over our communities."

Mr. Nice Guy

 

[CoreyTMorine]

treeseer 2

Sorry Correy that I responded in a way that you do not want to respond to. That snapshot into your thought process included some exaggerations, which are not a good basis for conclusions. That is why I singled them out. In your previous post you made the blanket recommendation to clear-cut storm-damaged areas. And now you're saying that you don't want to argue? How can anyone not argue with that insanity?



Mr. Nice Guy

I never said that I don’t want to argue, only that my initial post was not an argument. I like to discuss things, even if the discussion gets heated.

My recommendation was not to clear-cut storm damaged areas. The statement to clear-cut was in regard to new construction, that’s what my post said. Did you even read it? Or did you just see the word “clear-cut” and get angry? You quote me out of context, and misinterpret my words and then declare them insane? I don’t even know what to say.

This method of conversation by which you call me names and tell everyone how wrong I am then proceed with your own plans and ideas is not a very good way to get a point across. It sounds like your trying to prove to yourself why my perspective is invalid without taking the time to analyze my point of view.

I try and listen to everyone I talk with, I’m always surprised at the little gems I pick up while out in the rough. Also I find it is much easier to find middle ground if I know exactly what the other party is after. And once I understand the reason behind someone’s stance I often find that we are closer in vision than it may have originally appeared.

But this kind of consensus is much more difficult to reach when one party uses words like “insane” and “exaggerations”. I expect and look forward to that kind of banter down in HK, up here though it has a different connotation. Treeseer, you have some great points and really useful information to offer, but the framework in which they are presented makes them difficult to work with. Perhaps you could take a writing course? Or seek out a councilor who specializes in “boundary work” and “non-confrontational interaction”.

I hope this post makes you less angry and not more so. I also hope it makes you think before posting. You have offended me; by twisting the meaning of my writing and then commenting on the skewed version.

 

[treeseer]

hoo boy let's take it from the top. Priest wrote about whether or not to keep trees in established but storm-damaged neighborhoods. That was the context. The first thing you said was "Clear cut it". Later on came the talk about new neighborhoods, but Priest was talking about old neighborhoods; correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems that your post was not a response to priest, so sorry if I tried to take it the wrong way. I got confused; not the first time. If you have a "new neighborhood" thread to start, great!

Clearcutting new neighborhoods is in most cases insanity; I gotta stick with that one, and I gotta confront it where I can. Anyone familiar with the practices in that book would not be saying "Clear cut it".

No offense meant; We can let this rest until we hear from Priest.

 

[CoreyTMorine]

Good enough by me. Thanks so much for taking the time to clarify.

 

[smokechase II]

Not to break up this interesting side bar.
BUT.
What tree species are known for sending down the best tap root and do they offer any more security?
Then, what about mid sized species? That will get blown over, BUT.....
If one were to combine the States of Washington and Oregon, (just for analysis - no hate mail, OK?), together we have typically one fatality tree event each year. This usually involves a tent, camper or mobile home. Not by any means is this always on a more solid home.
But then, we don't have that much wind here, (Columbia Gorge folks notwithstanding - and that’s if they can stand in that breeze).
Now let’s go to hurricane tornado world.
Are you afraid, you should be? Been to the Francis Marion several times because of Hugo. Despite the fact that no one died in the US cause of that monster I'm still going to say based on damage alone.
"Get rid of those big pine near your home." A big stick hits with lots of leverage. Try a smaller stick as part of your plan.

 

[treeseer]

Around here hickories send down the biggest tap root, but Hurricane Isabel laid em down just the same. She blew in when their crowns were heavy with nuts.

big sticks are not the problem as much as leans and full heavy crowns and weakened roots. It ain't the meat, it's the motion.

 

[clearance]

Leaving big trees in a new subdivision is a scam that happens here all the time (lower mainland, Vancouver B.C.). Developers put roads and services into a 100 acre stand of big second growth fir, 2+', 100+' tall e.g.. They fall 95% of it then people come and look at the lots or spec. houses. "oh look at all the trees honey". Then the trees die because the water table is changed or they blow down. Should have just clearcut in the first place. The trees were o.k. untill you cut down all their buddies, but everybody wants the omellete, have to break some eggs.

 

[treeseer]

clearance, that's another post of yours I totally agree with! leaving trees that have no chance is foolish. I saw a $750,000 spec house the other day that was a stop on a Parade of Homes. Bleached salesgirls inside ready to hype and dazzle. Dead hickory in front, looking like crap, their marketing tool turned into a liability.

They were counting on Tree Time to keep it green until it sold, but they did way too good a job at their specialty, root abuse.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Mattheck has a good rule of thumb for survivability of trees in the open.

If the trunk Dia = 1 and the hight = 30 then the risk of wind related failure is nominal.

If the ratio climbs to 1:50 then statistical failure rate is critical.

So if you thin out stand grown trees enough to let the wind in, and the hight is near 50 x basal diameter, you will have a very high rate of failure.

 

[treeseer]

Some truth to that formula, but it ignores crown size and shape, (and seems to hint at topping as a "fix"). A 1' dbh tree 50' high is fine if its live crown ratio is high (has healthy lower branches). If not, not.

 

[CoreyTMorine]

I saw him speak once a long time ago. he didn't say anything about topping. He did say that you prune "backwards" in that you must leave the small interior limbs, and remove the large healthy branches. This will decrease the overall sail area. I don't remember the details very well, and i'm not looking up my notes; i did change my technique after.

For awhile i took to reducing the larger branches to about half way, with the idea that this would allow the tree to begin isolating the branch further back towards the trunk. Also this would more evenly introduce all of that energy to the secondary branches. in the winter it looked kind of funny, but with leaves the trees looked good.

Then in the next pruning cycle a couple, three years down the road the plan was to remove the major limb that had been reduced. Having had time to issolate the branch i'd hoped that the wound would heal better and that decay resistant material would already be present in the crotch. I don't do much of that type work now, but i still think its better than over thinning the interior so the wind/light can blow/shine through; I've seen alot of that kind of prunning, never liked it.

I have not seen the results into the third and fourth prunning cycles. I would be very interested in hearing from someone who has.