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.