Tree Risk Assessment

Total Tree Health Care, Inc. 486 Lovely Mount Drive Radford, VA 24141
Phone: 540-392-4992 ~ Email: treedoctor@live.com ~ Web: www.totaltreehealthcare.com

February 15, 2012 Prepared for: Virginia Tech (Bill Shrader) Date of evaluation: 2-14-12

Tree Location: Adjacent to Cadet training tower in wood lot on east side of Lane Stadium Tree Species: White oak DBH: 47 Height: 85-100

Evaluator: Quintin McClellan, ISA Certified Arborist MA 3180

Signature:

Introduction
A tree may be considered hazardous if it has two things 1) a defect that creates an unreasonable risk of branch, stem or root failure, and 2) a target for the tree to make contact with that would cause damage to property or cause personal injury or death. Stem defects occurring in the zone between four feet above ground and the first live branch are most critical. This area of the stem is a major stress point during periods of high winds. Decay is the most common predisposing factor to stem and branch failure. The white oak in question exhibits visible signs that it may be hazardous. Therefore, a hazard evaluation was conducted using methods (published by Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories in Charlotte, NC) to calculate a tree risk rating. Based on the tree risk rating assigned to the tree, a recommendation is presented for remedial action.

General Observations
The white oak in question is a very large oak tree (47 dbh). The crown of the tree (Fig. 1) appears to be in good condition with few defects. For the most part there is minimal dead wood accumulation. Crotch angles are wide with no inclusions. There are no co-dominant stems in the tree stem and branch distribution and spacing along the truck is good, i.e. the architecture of the tree is relatively free of leaning stems, branches with excessive end weight, and poor taper. From the ground, there appears to be no cracks/seams, decay, wounds, or other defects in the crown of the tree.

Figure 1. White Oak tree

Figure 2. Cavity opening in base of tree

The base of the tree has a very large cavity which is hollow on the inside of the tree (Fig. 2) A burl surrounds the cavity on the left and right side. These burls or abnormal tissue growths do not lend structural integrity to the base of the tree and are therefore not included in measuring the cavity opening, (i.e. the cavity opening includes the space that the burls occupy, thus making the cavity larger than it appears). The hollow inside the stem reaches up to about 10 above ground and is tapered (Fig. 3). Measuring 18 above ground, the cavity is 25.5 in diameter. Although 30% of the circumference lacks root flare at the base of the tree, I was encouraged to see that the other 75% of the circumference has excellent root flare with no visibl e sign of decay. The root flare on the opposite side of the cavity expands about nine feet across from one side of the tree to the other. Bartlett Research Laboratories publishes failure profiles for trees in the eastern United States. They list root dec ay as being common contributing factor in old oak trees. The tree has a slight lean and is almost negligible. It should be noted that the healthy side of the tree where the root flare is most prominent is opposite the lean (and the cavity) . Lastly, there is a large seam on the opposite right side of the cavity beginning at 18 and extending 10 (Fig. 4). The seam contributes to the overall defect of the tree but is not factored mathematically into calculating defect severity. This will be explained further below.

Figure 3. Cavity at base of tree extends 10 above ground

Figure 4. Seam can be seen on left side of picture.

Results
Stems with decay in more than 70% of the total stem diameter have a hi gh to critical risk of failure. More specifically, the minimum thickness of sound wood surrounding a decay column should be at least 1 for every 6 of wood. This figure assumes no additional defects in the stem such as a cavity. Since the white oak in question has a cavity, the size of the opening relative to the overall circumference of the tree must be taken into account. The cavity of the white oak is approximately 30% percent of the circumference, therefore, the minimum thickness of sound wood must be greater than 15.5 for the tree not to be considered a severe risk. Drilling was not necessary to determine the average thickness of sound wood on the white oak. Instead the diameter of the cavity inside the tree was measured to be 25.5. The difference between the inside and outside diameters is just under 11 of total wood (including the tree bark). This measure includes any decayed tissue and the bark of the tree, so the total depth of sound wood is probably at least 2-3 inches less than 11. If we assume a value of 8-9 of sound wood surrounding the cavity it puts the severity of the defect (i.e. cavity opening) just a hair above the critical rating of 8.46. The presence of the large seam in the trunk previously mentioned clearly tips the defect into the critical rating. Coming up with a total risk rating involves two other value inputs (Table 1.) Defect severity is given a number which we have already determined to be a critical defect. The next input is target value or use frequency. I determined this area to be a frequently used area. The final input necessary to determine the tota l risk rating is the size of the plant part. In this case, the stem in question is grater than 20 dbh and therefore receives the highest score. When added together the total risk rating is determined to be highest risk/critical failure imminent.

Table 1. Guidelines for Rating Risk

Recommendation
Based on the results of this evaluation this tree should be removed in a timely manner. Until the tree can be removed, a perimeter should be set up to keep pedestrians far enough away from the tree in case it should fall before the tree can be removed safely.