2 Fungi + 1 Crack + Lean + Target =?
- Thread starter treeseer
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
sac-climber
ArboristSite Operative
I found the solution....treeseer moves into the bedroom underneath and takes daily measurements with a clinometer. 
imagineero
Addicted to ArboristSite
Good responses, thanks! Good eye by ATH on the flare, and what it says about lower risk from lean. And the 'shear crack'; I advised the guy to check the other side to confirm this suspicion.
Good reasoning via TRAQ by BC, but perhaps some logical leaps re the inevitability of action by Laetiporus (or whatever that fungus is; the brits suspect Meripilus) and pruning's lack of effectiveness in mitigation. A little off the lever arms can do a lot.
Soils is what I studied most for BCMA, as it was a weak point for me as well. Invigorating roots is well-proven to improve tree health. Replacing soil full of 'good guys' can displace or outcompete the bad guys.
sac, as I understand it, options are what Could be done, recommendations are what Should be done. Big difference re liability, imo based on time in the witness chair! We all do some CYA but ime forcing out an opinion just because you agreed to Make A Recommendation is not a comfortable place to be.
In the last picture, there may be a guide to reasonable mitigation.
Good reasoning via TRAQ by BC, but perhaps some logical leaps re the inevitability of action by Laetiporus (or whatever that fungus is; the brits suspect Meripilus) and pruning's lack of effectiveness in mitigation. A little off the lever arms can do a lot.
Soils is what I studied most for BCMA, as it was a weak point for me as well. Invigorating roots is well-proven to improve tree health. Replacing soil full of 'good guys' can displace or outcompete the bad guys.
sac, as I understand it, options are what Could be done, recommendations are what Should be done. Big difference re liability, imo based on time in the witness chair! We all do some CYA but ime forcing out an opinion just because you agreed to Make A Recommendation is not a comfortable place to be.
In the last picture, there may be a guide to reasonable mitigation.
BuckmasterStumpGrinding
ArboristSite Operative
My vote is removal. It may or may not fail but if it does fail it will be bad. There is a lot of weight up there and not much lower growth to disperse the weight when it hits the house. That tree looks like it might kill someone if it failed.
sac-climber
ArboristSite Operative
Your totally right treeseer, it's just a bad habit I've formed. I was an Ag. Science major so the term "recs" was drilled into to me for all those years. Our forms list them as mitigation options.
That's good to hear. Is this a private company's form, or do you use the TRAQ form?
imagineero
Addicted to ArboristSite
Maybe also tell the guy to have a look for any signs of compression buckling in the bark on the low side as an indicator? It's one of the things I'm always looking for in suspect trees.
I always try to get as much background about the site as I can in cases like this too.... Often something happened in recent years that contributed. Excavation, removal of ground cover, removal of a building that previously caught a lot of water into gutters, anything that could affect drainage, block pipes, unusual weather events. People who have lived in a place a long time usually remember those things if you ask, but generally wont mention them if you don't. It's amazing how many times you ask about a lean and if there was any work done near it and get a reply like "well, the neighbours put a new fence in and the guy cut through all the roots of the tree but I don't think it's related. The tree didn't start leaning until we had that big storm the following spring".
It's not hard to envisage a scenario like maybe a building got removed or ground cover changed, concrete or pavers went down or grass died off leading to increased run off/erosion causing both an overly wet soil area around the tree which tends to promote fungal growth and causing the lean. That combined with someone saying that it used to be upright but slowly started leaning, a through tree shear crack and compression buckling on the low side and you're able to make a good case for removal. At the same time, if none of those things occurred and you can document it then you have good logical reasons for retaining the tree, and with a paper trail a clear defense and justification should a 100 year storm knock it over the following year.
I always try to get as much background about the site as I can in cases like this too.... Often something happened in recent years that contributed. Excavation, removal of ground cover, removal of a building that previously caught a lot of water into gutters, anything that could affect drainage, block pipes, unusual weather events. People who have lived in a place a long time usually remember those things if you ask, but generally wont mention them if you don't. It's amazing how many times you ask about a lean and if there was any work done near it and get a reply like "well, the neighbours put a new fence in and the guy cut through all the roots of the tree but I don't think it's related. The tree didn't start leaning until we had that big storm the following spring".
It's not hard to envisage a scenario like maybe a building got removed or ground cover changed, concrete or pavers went down or grass died off leading to increased run off/erosion causing both an overly wet soil area around the tree which tends to promote fungal growth and causing the lean. That combined with someone saying that it used to be upright but slowly started leaning, a through tree shear crack and compression buckling on the low side and you're able to make a good case for removal. At the same time, if none of those things occurred and you can document it then you have good logical reasons for retaining the tree, and with a paper trail a clear defense and justification should a 100 year storm knock it over the following year.
sac-climber
ArboristSite Operative
We use a modified version of the traq form, a slightly different layout.
I voted for removal but without being there to see it, I could be persuaded. As far as target....are we talking property damage only or is the tree over living space. Did you put a resistograph to it yet?
you wouldn't need a total failure here to smash that structure. I bet there are tree sized limbs up there that could fall 50 feet and flatten that building. you can't predict a tree or a limb failing. I love trees too but I would press to remove that tree with no other options offered. I wouldn't be surprised if that trunk had a mud puddle inside it.
One option offered is pruning. the tree shows us where it is retrenching itself to, if we take time to look. Our job is to predict, and avoid, failure. Trying to scare tree owners senseless is not credible.
Mud puddle? Head for the bomb shelter--quick!
Attachments
imagineero
Addicted to ArboristSite
could you please explain some more of what you mean by "the tree shows us where it is retrenching itself to"?
I have to disagree. Its not senseless fear by any means. Have you never seen a failure of a perfectly healthy tree? Its not a question of tree health here, its an ultimate risk question. Whereas is the risk of being wrong worth it? Simply, no.One option offered is pruning. the tree shows us where it is retrenching itself to, if we take time to look. Our job is to predict, and avoid, failure. Trying to scare tree owners senseless is not credible.
Mud puddle? Head for the bomb shelter--quick!
Then why not remove every tree everywhere within reach of any target? Any one could fail and cause damage.
What about those pictures makes you so certain that failure is imminent?
This is where somebody with a strong knowledge and experience can offer a reasonable risk evaluation.
What about those pictures makes you so certain that failure is imminent?
This is where somebody with a strong knowledge and experience can offer a reasonable risk evaluation.
I didnt say it would fail. I said i disagree that the risk isnt worth it. And if every tree that could hit a structure was exactly like that one, i would agree to remove them all. You are taking the risk of a specific tree and turning it into equal risk for every tree with 1 matching criteria. In fact, nothing you have questioned me on was anything that i said at all. Quite manipulating
Mike, the risk of being wrong is very low, when working to standards developed by science and specifications developed by practice. I've left very hollow trees over highways and other 'targets', because I know they are low risk when i am done with them.
Here;s a 29# conk of a decay fungus. Tree reduced 15%. no worries.
Here;s a 29# conk of a decay fungus. Tree reduced 15%. no worries.
Attachments
I completely understand. And i can see everyones point of view. It is my opinion that there is no 100% in this, or any, tree. And given these logistics, i would remove. Again, i dont disagree about your professionalism. It is my opinion
Similar threads
