ANSI Pruning Comment--Big Change Proposed

[treeseer]

Time's up on March 26, so comment now or hold your piece (or is it peace?)
See this month's TCI magazine or go online http://www.tcia.org/PDFs/Part1-PruningDrft2V1PubRev02'07.pdf

I think it's great that this process allows comments from the field.

Here's my main comment. What do you think?

5.5.3 “When repeated pruning is necessary for a tree to avoid conflicts with elements such as infrastructure, view, traffic, or utilities, removal or relocation SHALL be considered.”

GM: This is a proposed addition from 2001 and there is not a clear reason for it in general arboriculture. This language mandates that every arborist must consider removing every tree that is occasionally pruned to clear a house or a road, and every hedge, would create an undue burden on the arborist. This proposed addition would also tend to defeat the whole Purpose of this Standard.
If this language has any place, it is under Utility Pruning, and there only as a should, not a shall. For general purposes, it would be more appropriate to recommend considering the retention of every tree.

ASC A300 Response: Not accepted. The requirement only asks the arborist to consider the option in certain qualified instances. This requirement for consideration only applies when repeated pruning is
necessary.

GM 3/16/2007: This response is not accurate.

1. Requirements do not ask, they order. By using “shall”, ANSI mandates.
2. “repeated” is not defined.
3. 5.5.3 says nothing about “certain qualified instances”. As it stands, the committee is telling arborists that they MUST consider removing every tree that will need to be repruned to avoid conflicts with infrastructure, view traffic, or utilities. This comprises most if not all of the trees in the landscape.

This proposed 5.5.3 goes outside the scope of the Standard. According to the Scope, these “standards (are) for the care and management of trees…”. They do not give primacy to ” infrastructure, view, traffic, or utilities”. This proposal is not “based on current research and sound practice”, as the Mission clearly calls for. It would be very UNsound practice to require an arborist to look at every tree that will be pruned more than once as a potential removal. This order would create an undue burden and turn the arborist’s attention directly away from “care and management”.

There is no research or sound practice supporting this proposal, so proper procedures were not followed by the ASC in developing 5.5.3. It needs to be worded more clearly, or better yet scrapped entirely. As it stands, it will cause financial damage in an arbitrary manner for me to be ordered to look at most of the trees I encounter as potential removals. As I understand the process, this would be grounds for an Appeal.

 

[NYCHA FORESTER]

It sounds like they are trying to write a standard that even a caveman can follow. Unfortunately.... writing a vague standard and applying it to a specific or unique situation will create confusion. I'm sure attorneys will like it though.

If I'm reading it correctly anyway....

 

[Blinky]

I don't get why that language about removal was included in the first place. If repeated pruning is called for, removal should already have been considered and rejected. Is removal supposed to be preferred over multiple pruning?

Even if the expense were the same, repeated prunig would be amortized over a long period where removal would be a major one time expense... with the potential for causing additional problems with nearby trees like sun scald and wind damage.

With a healthy tree I'll take two or three prunings over a number of years before a removal anytime.

Seem like a completely useless statement to me. Better to keep standards simple without useless, sleepy language.

Maybe I'm just not grasping the reasoning behind the standard.

 

[treeseer]

writing a vague standard and applying it to a specific or unique situation will create confusion. I'm sure attorneys will like it though.

If I'm reading it correctly anyway....

Yes that is exactly how I read it. Fear of liability running amok. Right now I'm pricing an inventory for thousands of city trees that will need repeated pruning. How can I price this added task of considering the removal of each and every one?

 

[diltree]

Wow...this is ridiculous, Isn't the standards Intended focus: Tree Care and management?

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

My take is that there are times when cyclical pruning will stress a tree enough to cause it to increase the tisk of failure in the future.

What is the pruning cycle? Will the treatment increase the risk of failure between visits?

If yes recomend removal
If no, prune as normal

Guy, how does that add an undue burden to an inventory. You would already do this as you recomend the tree for pruning, with the ANSI requirment, all you need is to document that it is reasonable to assume that that tree will not become a hazard in the interim.

All this is doing is forcing those entities that use the A300 to show the prosess. Most don't for each tree, could you see a ROW contractor soing that?

I think we all have taken trees off roofs that were pruned heavily for ROW work, and failed from decay associated with those wounds. These trees are left in place only becasue they do not want to spend the money. Insurance companies could use the ANSI when the failure takes place.

IMO they should require documentation for large trees in any ROW work.

 

[Dadatwins]

My take is that there are times when cyclical pruning will stress a tree enough to cause it to increase the tisk of failure in the future.

What is the pruning cycle? Will the treatment increase the risk of failure between visits?

If yes recomend removal
If no, prune as normal

Guy, how does that add an undue burden to an inventory. You would already do this as you recomend the tree for pruning, with the ANSI requirment, all you need is to document that it is reasonable to assume that that tree will not become a hazard in the interim.

All this is doing is forcing those entities that use the A300 to show the prosess. Most don't for each tree, could you see a ROW contractor soing that?

I think we all have taken trees off roofs that were pruned heavily for ROW work, and failed from decay associated with those wounds. These trees are left in place only becasue they do not want to spend the money. Insurance companies could use the ANSI when the failure takes place.

IMO they should require documentation for large trees in any ROW work.

Since no one can predict with absolute certainty the failure of a tree, the ROW contractors will simply start removing ALL the trees in their path and be within the boundaries of this proposed rule. Granted some of these trees should be removed, rather than continued pruning to the point that they do fall apart after years of decay. The risk of insurers coming after ROW companies after a tree falls that they pruned would be a lawyers field day. Using this proposed standard a legal arguement could be made that pruning is wounding, the wounding caused the tree to decline, which caused the failure. Contractor should have cut the tree down instead of pruning to avoid this from happening. My fear is that to many folks will use this standard to remove trees that if IMPROPERLY pruned would die, but could survive if they were pruned PROPERLY. I think the word SHALL should not be used in this standard. JMHO

 

[begleytree]

I'm all for considering removal in the case of repeated utility cutting, but I disagree with the mandated shall requirement.

repeated, I agree there too. repeated could mean once a year or twice in a trees lifetime.

if we were to start removing every tree that someone built something next to, soon, well, I think we will run out of trees before we do cell towers, street lights or utility lines. imo, if the tree was there first and is a desirable species in good health, then that tree takes precedence over whatever someone is wanting to build or erect. of course my term of desirable species is undefined as well. and I conveniently omitted the trees value or value enhancement of property.

I see this change as giving utilities more solid footing in their push to remove everything near their structures. not a good thing, imo.
-Ralph

 

[treeseer]

The risk of insurers coming after ROW companies after a tree falls that they pruned would be a lawyers field day. Using this proposed standard a legal arguement could be made that pruning is wounding, the wounding caused the tree to decline, which caused the failure.

That exact thing has happened--a utility was sued after a tree fell apart and hurt someone. The case hinged on whether the pruning was proper; I don't know if or how that one was resolved.

JPS yeah there is something to your interim point; that sounds pretty reasonable. I still think it would add a burden, but I would hold off on the Appeal (there has only been one other in history) by proposing that it get changed to Should, "repeated" get clarified, and insert a sister standard stating that the future benefits of a tree should be considered before removing it. Sound fair?"

 

[diltree]

TreeSeer

'by proposing that it get changed to Should, "repeated" get clarified, and insert a sister standard stating that the future benefits of a tree should be considered before removing it. Sound fair?"

Well Said!

 

[Dadatwins]

That exact thing has happened--a utility was sued after a tree fell apart and hurt someone. The case hinged on whether the pruning was proper; I don't know if or how that one was resolved.

I think that this is the biggest problem for ANSI trying to develop a standard, is the pruning proper for line clearance, or proper for street work, or proper for residential work, ect. A fair statement can be made that all three have a different method of pruning and usually none of them will actually benefit the tree. Forcing ROW contractors and the like to document and insure the 'livabilty' of a tree after pruning will be a tough task. With the wording of this proposed standard I fear more contractors will simply remove the tree to avoid conflict down the road. I think it takes the decision away from the property/tree owner and gives contractors a free pass to base cut everything.

 

[treesquirrel]

Irresponsible pruning

The biggest problem I see in my area is with pruning along raodways adjacent to homes.

One of the big utility companies here will drive along and cut every limb off the line side of the trees. this leaves ALL the weight of the other limbs pulling the tree directly onto private homes, cars, etc...

When and if the tree does fail it WILL go into the home or at least the property possibly causing damage to private property.

I cannot beleive my eyes when I see this.

I've considered approaching the county about this practice.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Yes that is exactly how I read it. Fear of liability running amok. Right now I'm pricing an inventory for thousands of city trees that will need repeated pruning. How can I price this added task of considering the removal of each and every one?

Are you suggesting there needs to be another standard about considering not planting trees that will need repeated pruning?

I see the standard as enforcing the idea of PHC, or holistic tree care. It's easy to see a tree growing up into a view and think, crown reduction, while it might make more sense to remove and plant a lower growing tree.
To not consider the replacement possibility, is doing the client a disservice.

In the car analogy, if a mechanic sees a car owner once or twice a month to do repairs, he should talk to him about the possibility of replacing the car.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

A fair statement can be made that all three have a different method of pruning and usually none of them will actually benefit the tree.

They all will make large cuts, or head back on a cyclical basis to reduce cost of maintinance. Especially with large willow, cottonwood, box elder and silver maple. Huge cuts, regularly stripping sprouts, large pockets of decay and leaving it stand.

We had one 2 years agow where the contractor employee told the homeowner that the willow with basal decay on the tension side, leaning towards her house, would probably last several years. Lasted a couple months. Landed on two homes and made one of my clients a health percentage of his annual net income.

I regularly see trees hit by line clearance that I wish would have come down.

Originally Posted by treeseer
Yes that is exactly how I read it. Fear of liability running amok. Right now I'm pricing an inventory for thousands of city trees that will need repeated pruning. How can I price this added task of considering the removal of each and every one?

Hmm, guy must have deleted this just as I read it...

Being the ethical person you are, you would already be doing that as you look at the tree. Is a tre by tree inventory, or street by street?

If the latter then just add a paragraph referancing A300 5.5.3 requirment stating that removal was concidered for each tree inspected. Pruning impacts and longterm health were taken into concideration based on an X year cycle, normal weather conditions and current condition. All you are doing is documenting your descision making process.

 

[treeseer]

Good points Mike and John. I think that it belongs in utility (which has a separate section in the standard already). In fact it's there already: 5.9.2.1.3 "Trees growing next to, and into utilities should be removed or pruned". Considered in that order, presumably.:monkey:

Dada I agree but the only difference I see tween line and street clearing is that one does not require topping. I see no real dif tween street and building; clearance is clearance

I hope that guy who said that willow would "probably" stand is well insured, or did not say that in front of witnesses. Advising retention like everything else entails risk--one leaning oak I pruned back crushed a house, $35k. The owner knew it was his decision (I made sure of that) so I was not liable. Still, that was a bad day...

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Good points Mike and John...

I hope that guy who said that willow would "probably" stand is well insured, or did not say that in front of witnesses. Advising retention like everything else entails risk--one leaning oak I pruned back crushed a house, $35k. The owner knew it was his decision (I made sure of that) so I was not liable. Still, that was a bad day...

The fellow was one of the people in the orange trucks with black letters, don't know if he was crew leader. All I know is that he was makiing excuses for the budgetary descisons that he had to work with. The property owner asked why they did not take it down.

I told the lady that they should have the insurance agent qustion the action...

 

[treeseer]

I told the lady that they should have the insurance agent qustion the action...

Good advice. Those agents get real proactive. because of their demands, I once had to cut back an ancient oak which was a big reason for its decline imo. A rotting leaning willow on the other hand...

 

[treeseer]

An update:

"I agree with you, to a point. I think the 'shall' in this case is too strong. As it stands, 'shall consider' is still a recommendation, but the 'shall' emphasizes that recomendation, making ita greater priority. And I don't think it's our purpose to do that. As a 'should' statement it is sound advise to consider removing trees that require an inordinant amount of pruning, or that cause serious or repeated infrastructure damage. But's that's were the condideration comes in. Any decision for removal must be based on the tree's value:
species desirability, location, health and structural condition, significance (historical, landmark, aesthetic, wildlife habitat, etc.), as well as the cost of maintenance. And of course, there are often alternatives to removal. It's really more of an issue for municipal and
utility arborists rather than commercial/consulting arborists managing privately owned trees. As it stands, I don't think that it mandates that an arborist do anything out of the norm. It is encumbant on arborists to consider all issues when it comes to making recommendations to their clients. And, after all, It's the client who makes the final decision not the arborist. I don't agree that the statement creates an economic hardship for arborists. It may however, encourage the unnecessary or unwarranted removal of trees interferring with infrastructure.
Therefore, I support changing the shall to a should and perhaps rewording the statement to make it a little more specific or conditional."

** Rufus, Good Response. The wording for utility is already clear in 5.9.2.1.3

Re municipal. let me relate some experience on this point.A local town had an inventory done by a major national company that specializes in this service. They recommended removing 268 trees, citing no detail beyond "poor condition" Sinc emany of these trees were quite large, the town asked me to render a second opinion. I found 23 that were in truly poor condition--the rest had conditions that the inspector did not understand or, the majority, were near wires or buildings and would need repeated pruning. The town did not agree, so the inventory was a poor investment because the inspector had a 5.3.3 mindset.

My point here is, utility and municipal folks manage groups of trees more than individuals, and they already routinely consider removal. As you say, it's less of an issue for private work. **So where is the need for 5.3.3 arising from?**

"Any decision for removal must be based on the tree's value: (future contributions)
species desirability, location, health and structural condition, significance (historical, landmark, aesthetic, wildlife habitat, etc.), as well as the cost of maintenance."

i strongly agree. In fact, loathe as I am to add another rule or more language, if 5.3.3 must remain in some form, I was about to propose adding a companion standard or at least insert a sentence worded much like your sentence above.

"It is encumbant on arborists to consider all issues when it comes to making recommendations to their clients. And, after all, It's the client who makes the final decision not the arborist. I don't agree that the statement creates an economic hardship for arborists. It may however, encourage the unnecessary or unwarranted removal of trees interferring with infrastructure."

True enough. The hardship would not be severe, or universally felt. Your last sentence is the crux of my comment, per my municipal experience.

"Therefore, I support changing the shall to a should and perhaps rewording the statement to make it a little more specific or conditional."

I shall submit a proposal for said rewording before the 26th.

 

[M.D. Vaden]

Actually, I start pruning to avoid conflicts with buildings about 40 years before the potential event.

It could be just a Japanese maple 20 feet away.

So that potential phrase / language is a bit ellusive of definition.

That kind of proposed micromanagement basically lulls professionals to sleep as far as standards go.