Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutArborist ReportVALUAT14 OF THE SCHILZ RE; CE TREES MARCH 3, 2019 PREPARED FOR Staci Schilz 1751 Rodeo Rd., Arcadia, CA 91006 PREPARED BY Peter C. Harnisch Consulting Arborist 1022 Santa Ana St., Laguna Beach, CA 92651 EVALUATION OF THE SCHILZ RESIDENCE TREES MARCH 3 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary.........- --- - - --- Introduction ...................................... ---- -- ------ Background ---- Background and Assignment ........... Field Inspection -- - Limits of the Assignment .............. Observations Western Sycamore Tree A Western Sycamore Tree B Coast Live Oak Tree C Coast Live Oak Tree D ..............., Coast Live Oak Tree E Western Sycamore Tree F Findings Sycamore Trees _...... --- .................. ....................... Oak Trees Conclusions Recommendations ................... .............. .......................... Sycamore Trees Oak Trees -------------------- ---------------------------------------------- Attachments: Appendix A: Site Sketch Appendix B: Photos Appendix C: List of Credentials Appendix D: Certification of Performance Appendix E: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1 1 --------------------- 2 3 ................................... --......... ................ ... 3 ......--- ................................................ 3 ................. -- ......... I.............. 3 .......... ---........ - ...... -- ..... -- ------- 3 ----------...... ---.............. ---............................ -------------------------------------------------•--.............4 ........................................ .........4 ----------- ............... ------------......... ......... Summary Staci Schilz contacted me about trees at her residence. She was concerned about their safety and had several of them recently pruned. Staci asked me to inspect the trees and provide an opinion on the work that was done and the condition of the trees. I performed a visual inspection from the ground only. I determined that three sycamore trees may have compromised structure. I also have concerns about the way the oak trees were pruned. Introduction Background and assignment Staci Schilz recently contacted me regarding several trees at her residence that she was concerned about. She informed me that large limbs from trees in her yard have failed recently. She was fearful that further failures could cause property damage or injury to her grandchildren that often play in the yard. She recently had many of them pruned to reduce risk. She asked me to provide an opinion on the work that was done. She also asked me to inspect the rest of the significant trees on her property and provide an opinion on their condition. She asked that I provide a written report of my findings. Field Inspection I traveled to the site on February 27, 2019 to inspect the trees. While there, I took photographs and did a brief, visual inspection of the trees which were described to me as belonging to the subject property. The subject trees were not tagged. A site sketch is provided in Appendix A which shows approximate tree locations on the property. Photographs can be seen in Appendix B. Limits of the Assignment Observations made in the following report are based on limited visual inspection from the ground only at the time of inspection. No in-depth above or below ground inspections were performed as part of this report. Many such inspections may be necessary to be more conclusive about what was observed from the ground and are not included as part of this report. Property line locations were described to me by others; accuracy of property boundaries is not guaranteed. Before any recommendations are followed or actions taken regarding any trees that are subject to this report, a determination of ownership should be made. Since property lines sometimes do not follow J ; MARCH 3, 2019$ existing terrain or man-made barriers, the location of such boundaries should be accurately determined before making any assumptions of ownership. This report is by no means intended to serve as a formal risk assessment for the subject trees. More detailed inspections would have to be performed to be more conclusive about the risk associated with them and is not included as part of this report. All trees represent some risk of failure. Even with an evaluation such as this, there is no guarantee that a tree will not fail unexpectedly. Trees are dynamic living organisms subject to many influencing factors. All trees are potentially hazardous regardless of their apparent health, vigor, or structural integrity. It is impossible to be 100% sure that a tree is absolutely safe. The tree owner/manager must decide how much risk he/she is willing to accept. This must be weighed against the value and benefit that we receive from trees. Observations There are three large western sycamore trees (Platanus racemosa) and three large coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) on the Schilz property that are the subject of this report. Letters were assigned to the subject trees for identification purposes and will be referred to as such in the following (see Appendix A: Site Sketch). Western Sycamore Tree (A) Sycamore tree A is located in the front yard of the Schilz Residence in a lawn area surrounded by a circular driveway (see Appendix B: Photo 1). It is a mature and large example of the species and has two main trunks that are closely spaced. It appeared that the tree had been pruned in the past, however, not recently. There was evidence of heavy polyphagous shot hole borer (PSHB) activity on the main trunk and limbs of this tree. I also observed fungal cankers on upper limbs. Western Sycamore Tree (B) Sycamore tree B is located in the side yard on the west side of the house (see Appendix B: Photo 2). It has several large, closely spaced trunks. Large, elevated limbs of the tree overhang a parking area to the south and a lawn area below it. There was evidence of past, excessive pruning. This did not appear to be recent, however. I also observed extensive PSHB activity and fungal cankers within the upper trunk and branches of sycamore tree B. Coast Live Oak Tree (C) Oak C is located adjacent to sycamore B. It has a singular trunk that leans heavily to the east towards the house (see Appendix B: Photo 3). This is probably due to competition for growth space with the adjacent sycamore tree. It was pruned recently; several large pruning wounds can be seen where pruning sealer was applied to wound faces. Pruning appears to have been excessive and adequate terminals were not maintained at the pruning site in most cases. Foliage density is low as a result. Coast Live Oak Tree (D) Oak D is located near what appears to be the property line shared with the neighbor to the west (see Appendix B: Photo 4). It was recently pruned. A large cut was made which appeared to be done to provide clearance for a play house which is located below the tree. Pruning sealer was applied to the wound face. Coast Live Oak Tree (E) Oak E is located at the rear of the property close to the western property line (see Appendix B: Photo 5). It was also pruned recently. Pruning appears to be excessive. Large limbs were cut overhanging the rear area of the yard and several trunks appeared to have been cut off at their base. Pruning sealer was applied to pruning wounds. Foliage density seems to be low as a result. Western Sycamore Tree (F) Sycamore F is located at the rear corner of the Schilz property (see Appendix B: Photo 6). A large pruning cut was made on the main trunk of the sycamore. Evidence of PSHB activity could be seen on the remaining parts of the tree. Findings Sycamore Trees All of the subject sycamore trees at the Schilz Residence appear to be heavily infested with PSHB. Shot hole borer is a small ambrosia beetle that infects a tree with a destructive Fusarium fungus (Fusarium euwallacea). This entemopathogenic complex can cause decay in upper limbs and/or trunks of a tree that can lead to catastrophic failures. The severe pruning performed on sycamore F was done to reduce the risk of failure due to PSHB. Western sycamore is considered as a "reproductive host' species for PSHB which means that infestation can be severe and prolonged. The structural integrity of affected tree parts can be compromised. In addition, the fungal cankers observed within these sycamore trees can also represent a risk of failure. Tissue loss from the pathogen can compromise tree structure. This can especially be of concern when the decay is present on the upper sides of tree limbs where tension wood is located. MARCH 3, 20111 Oak Trees The subject live oak trees may have been pruned excessively. Over -pruning can lead to a stressed condition as a tree's photosynthetic capacity is diminished. A tree must tap into its reserves for survival and can be rendered defenseless against pathogens and/or attack from predatory insects. The extreme lean of the trunk of oak tree C may have predisposed it to failure. it is generally accepted that live oaks should be pruned from July through September. An exception to this can be made when imminent failure must be avoided. In this case, pruning should be kept to a minimum to insure safety, however. Maintaining adequate terminals at pruning sites is important to minimize decay formation within parent wood. Apical control is also preserved and helps to prevent rapid and poorly structured re -growth from occurring. Large pruning wounds at or near the base of a live oak should be avoided. It can sometimes lead to the formation of a decay column which cannot be stopped. The application of pruning sealer to wounds is an out dated practice that has been shown to be ineffective. It may also cause damage to cambial tissue and harbor insect populations. Conclusion Based on my findings, it is my opinion that the three large sycamore trees inspected on the Schilz property may be structurally compromised and subject to failure. Some of them may have to be pruned heavily and/or removed to insure safety. I also believe that the three large oak trees inspected have been pruned excessively. Additionally, decay formation may ensue where adequate terminals were not maintained at pruning sites and large cuts were made. Recommendations Sycamore Trees Hire a competent arborist to determine if heavy pruning of compromised tree parts or complete tree removal is necessary to insure safety for each of the three sycamore trees. Perform tree work based on this recommendation. This work may have to be done with the use of an aerial device to insure safety. Oak Trees Hire a qualified arborist to perform the following; Monitor the three live oak trees monthly until July 2019 and provide further recommendations. • A root crown excavation and inspection. Provide further recommendations based on findings. • Evaluate the oaks for restorative pruning in July 2019. I also recommend; • Install a three-inch layer of coarse, and disease-free mulch to root zone where possible. Sycamore Tree R Appendix A: Site Sketch Vak Tr e D )ak Tree C a Schilz Residence Sycam r Tree A NOT TO SCALE oaa �o oa Q- Syca, re Tree F Photo 1 shows sycamore tree A in the front yard of the Schilz Residence. It is heavily infested with PSHB and has cankers in upper limbs. Appendix B: Photos 1-3 Photo 2. Sycamore tree B is also heavily infested with PSHB and has many cankers in upper limbs. It may be subject to failure. Photo 3 shows oak tree C. Its trunk leans heavily towards the east. Large pruning cuts were made to reduce the risk of failure. Appendix B: Photos 4-6 Photo 4 shows oak tree D. It was pruned to provide clearance for the play house located below it. Photo 6 shows sycamore tree F where a large cut was made to its main trunk. PSHB infestation was observed in remaining tree parts. Appendix e List of C e entas � / : z k) \\ ! < & o * ;It / �� ) )}\ /§ a \; o ! «j k) \\ ! < & o * ;It / �� \ «j k) \\ Appendix D: Certification of Performance I, Peter Harnisch, certify that: • 1 have personally inspected the trees and the property referred to in this report and have stated my findings accurately. • 1 have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. • The analysis, opinions, and conclusions stated herein are my own and are based on current scientific procedures and facts. • My analysis, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices. • No one provided significant professional assistance to me, except as indicated within the report. • My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party or upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events. I further certify that I am a member in good standing of the American Society of Consulting Arborists and the International Society of Arboriculture. I have been involved in the field of arboriculture and care and study of trees for over 37 years. Signed: 1*4 Date:3/3/19 Appendix E: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. Any legal description provided to the consultantlappraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. 2. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible, however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 3. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. 4. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or oral consent of the consultant /appraiser. 6. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the prior expressed written or oral consent of the consultant/appraiser particularly as to value considerations, identity or the consultant /appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initialed designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications. 7. This report and values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant's/appraisers fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. 8. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. 9. Unless expressed otherwise: (1) information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection; and (2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems and deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future.