City of Ely



City of Ely

Tree Risk Assessment

Of Boulevard Trees Of Concern

[pic]

June 19, 2015

Re: Boulevard Trees

Harold Langowski

City Administrator

City of Ely

209 E. Chapman St

Ely, MN 55731

Dear Harold,

Thank you for asking us to assess the health of the boulevard trees on the city streets of Ely. Seventy-eight (78) trees were selected for a Level 2 Basic Assessment. There is some concern about the general health of some of trees due to their type, size, and root issues and the risk they pose to the general public. The scope of our project was to assess these two trees for general health, consider site characteristics , measure risk, suggest potential remediation if needed, and make our final recommendations. We recommend assessing these trees often, perhaps even annually, as our assessment is only good for one year.

Mark Rehder

Certified Arborist

MN-0256A

Table of Contents

SCOPE 4

HISTORY 4

SPECIES PROFILE 5

Silver Maple 5

Ash 6

WHY TREE FAILURES OCCUR 7

What is a Hazard Tree? 7

Observe the Trunk 7

Inspect the Crown 8

Roots 9

MAINTENANCE HISTORY 10

PROCEDURES 10

DATA 11

Crown and Branches 11

Trunk 12

Roots 14

RISK RATING 17

MITIGATED RISK 17

TREE VIGOR 18

MAPLE SYRUP TAPPING 18

CONCLUSION 19

DATA TABLE 20

SCOPE

We visited the City of Ely on May 4th and 5th, 2015 to complete the field portion of the assessment. The weather was sunny, no wind, and daytime temperatures in the 50's and 60's. We made multiple schedule changes to try and get the optimom conditions for good viewing. The clear skis helped at getting a good look at the interiors of the trees to look for structural issues.

We conducted a Level 2 assessment of the trees in question. The assessment consisted of a detailed visual inspection of the tree and its surrounding site and a synthesis of the information collected. The assessment considers only known targets and visible or detectable tree conditions. The basic tools used for analysis are binoculars, a probe, a mallet, and a camera. The assessment represents the condition of the tree and site at the time of inspection. The assessment is good for one year from the date on this report. Any tree, whether it has visible weaknesses or not, will fail if the forces applied to it exceed the strength of the tree or its parts.

The techniques and terminology used to complete this evaluation are endorsed by the International Society of Arboriculture(ISA). I have been Certified Arborists (MN-0256A) since 2001 and have also completed a Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) sponsored by the ISA. I have worked in the consulting forestry industry for over 20 years.

Jacob Ryg, who conducted the assessment with me, is a Board Certified Master Arborist and was formerly the City Forester for Rochester, MN.

HISTORY

Not much is known about the history of Ely's boulevard silver maples. Judging by counting the rings of previous maples that have been removed we can estimate their age to be around 80 years old. They were probably planted because they grew quick and were readily accessible and/or cheap. There is a good chance they were brought up from the Twin Cities area. However, there appear to be native areas of Silver maple (Acer saccharinum) in the area and it is possible they were transplanted as wildings.

Some of the ash tree diameters measured were in the 40 inch range suggesting these are older trees as well.

SPECIES PROFILE

The following information is from the United States Forest Service (USFS) and provides pertinent information regarding both Silver maple and Green ash.. It explains some of the characteristics of the species which is helpful in understanding some of the issues established in this report.

Silver Maple

USDA Forest Service Tree List

The soft wood of silver maple has a tendency to develop

cavities which are used by cavity-nesting birds and mammals, and which

otherwise provide shelter for a number of species including raccoons,

opossums, squirrels, owls, and woodpeckers.

Silver maple has been planted as an ornamental, but the limbs are easily

broken in ice and snow storms. Its use as an ornamental has

declined due to frequent breakage, tendency to rot, and prolific sprouting. The [pic]shallow roots invade water systems, the seeds are a nuisance, and it sheds a lot of twigs.

Silver maple sap can be used to make maple syrup

Silver maple is subject to damage by winds, ice, wood rot and insects

Relatively soft wood renders it susceptible to a number of wood rotting fungi.

Silver maple is a native, deciduous, medium-sized tree. Mature height

ranges from 90 to 120 feet (27-36 m). Silver maple is characterized as

a fast growing species. The trunk is often separated into several

upright branches near the ground. The crown is usually open and

rounded. The bark of young stems is smooth; it becomes darker and

furrowed to flaky on older stems. The root system is shallow and

fibrous. The deepest roots of 35-year-old silver maples planted on

clay soil in North Dakota were 55 inches (139.7 cm). The longest roots

extended horizontally 49 feet (14.9 m). The fruit is a winged

samara, 1.4 to 1.9 inch (3.5-5 cm) long and up to 0.48 inch (12 mm) wide

Silver maples can live to 130 years or longer. The national

champion silver maple (1972) was found in Michigan. It was 125 feet

(38.1 m) tall, 22.58 feet (82.6 m) in circumference, and had a crown

spread of 111 feet (33.8 m).

Ash

Green ash is a deciduous tree with high branches and a slender growth form. It grows to 100 feet (40 m) in the southern part of its range but is typically half that height in the northern portion of its range. Some research indicates height differences across the east to west range of this species as well. Trees found in New York are typically greater than 100 feet (30 m) tall, while those in South Dakota rarely exceed 49 feet (15 m). South Carolina's state champion green ash tree grows in the bottomland hardwood floodplain forest of Congaree National Park and was last measured in 2002. This tree was 143 feet (43.6 m) tall, and had a crown spread of 96 feet (29 m) and a circumference of 181 inches (460 cm). The 2004-2005 National Tree Register reports that the national champion green ash tree grows in Cass County, Michigan, and is 95 feet (29 m) tall, 259 inches (658 cm) in circumference, and has a 95-foot (29 m) canopy spread. This tree was last measured in 1995.

The trunk of green ash trees is large and straight. When subjected to prolonged periods of flooding, trunks may become enlarged at the base. Under dry conditions, the outer bark is between 5 and 7 mm thick at breast height, while the inner bark measures a thickness of 1.5 to 2.5 mm.

WHY TREE FAILURES OCCUR

This part of the report has been taken from the Agriculture Extension Service of the University of Tennessee. It was written by Larry Tankersley and was a joint effort by the USFS and the University of Tennessee. It is an older report but does a wonderful job of describing what the risk assessors are looking for when assessing these trees without going into so much detail as to make it confusing. Having the experience that we have we are able to not only recognize the issue but determine the extent to which it could effect the tree as the tree allows.

What is a Hazard Tree?

A tree failure occurs when a tree or large part of a tree breaks and falls. Hazard Tree Management deals in probabilities of failure rather than certainties. Age, species(especially rooting and branching characteristics), site, and condition all influence the relative hazard of the tree. A high probability of failure does not make a tree a hazard; there also must be a target that could be damaged or injured if the tree fails. Trees become a potential hazard when there is a

target. A target is a structure, vehicle or a person that would be struck by a falling tree or its parts. The target directly influences the degree of hazard. Consider the differences among a tree falling on a fence, a house or a person. A tree leaning over the bedroom is most hazardous. Trees near high use areas are more of a risk than those near infrequently visited areas, as the probability of a person being hit is greater. Priorities for removal or corrective treatments depend on the hazard rating of the tree. Tree age is important in hazard tree management. Every tree species has an inherent life span. Some trees inherently live longer than others. Risk of failure increases with age. Table 1 provides a general guide for hazards based on tree age and species. Longevity should be considered when evaluating existing tree hazards or selecting species to plant. Generally, longer-lived species are preferred, unless plans are made to maintain or periodically replace less persistent species. The environment in which a tree lives will also determine its hazard potential. Trees growing on rock ledges or near a body of water often have shallow root systems. Trees recently exposed by the removal of neighboring trees are more susceptible to damaging winds.

Observe the Trunk

Decay, a major cause of tree failure, is caused by fungi that weaken wood as they grow and reproduce. As healthy trees bend and sway, wood fibers slide past each other. Decaying tissues, however, are not flexible and often break. Each species of fungi has a characteristic, often conspicuous, reproductive structure. Some are conks, which are woody and perennial, while others are mushrooms that are soft and deteriorate after a short (e.g. several days to a few weeks) period. The presence of many reproductive structures often indicates advanced stages of decay. Decay is often present without obvious signs. Cracks, seams, butt swell, dead branch stubs and large, older wounds suggest internal decay. Decay fungi typically need an opening in the trees bark to enter the tree. Openings in the bark above and below ground are caused in a variety of ways. Fire, lightning, branches rubbing each other in response to wind and the activities of insects, humans, birds and other animals can wound a tree. Wounds and cankers are two types of tree defects associated with hazards. Cankers are usually tree diseases that are perennial and aggressive. These defects enlarge with time and increase the likelihood of tree failure. Wounds and cankers can be weak points on a trunk and their position relative to the prevailing winds influences the risk they represent. A tree is more likely to break at a wound or canker if it is facing or opposite to the direction of the prevailing wind. Most trees fail during winds greater than 40 mph. Some fall on a perfectly still day. Vertical cracks or seams along the trunk suggest internal defects. A hollow tree is not necessarily a hazard tree. Cavities develop from bark wounds. Many old trees have large conspicuous cavities or hollows in the main trunk, large root or branch. Vigorous trees have been observed to grow more sound wood around the hollow, compensating for that lost to decay. Compartmentalization of the decay also prevents the size of the rotten compartment from expanding. In later years, this new wood is continuous with the spreading roots and the tree can be strong enough to exist safely for many more years.

Inspect the Crown

Crown vigor and form are two indicators of the general health of trees. Crown characteristics of a potential hazard tree include dieback, V-shaped forks and lopsidedness. Branches in the upper crown often die from the top down in response to stress. Repeated insect defoliation, extended periods of drought, soil compaction or root disease cause stress. Opportunistic pests, such as insects and fungi, often invade and further stress the tree. Trees can recover from dieback, if the source of the stress is eliminated in time. However, trees with advanced crown decline will die and should be removed. V-shaped forks are weak compared to broader angled forks and branches. Ice storms, heavy wet snow or high winds often trigger failure. Elm, oak, maple, yellowpoplar and willow are especially prone to break at weak forks. Corrective pruning when trees are young can prevent many of these problems. Trees that grow on the edge of a woodlot or trees crowded together often form lopsided crowns or lean into the opening in response to sunlight. Leaning, lopsided trees may represent a hazard if they are above a target. Generally, trees that lean more than 15 degrees from vertical should be removed. Trees that have grown leaning are not as hazardous as trees that were originally straight, but subsequently developed a lean due to wind or root damage. The general growth form of the tree and any uplifted soil on the side of the tree opposite the lean provide clues to when the lean developed. Large trees that have tipped in intense winds seldom recover.

Roots

Root integrity and health cannot be over emphasized. In addition to absorbing water and essential elements, roots anchor the tree to the world. If the roots are damaged in any way, tree vitality and health are affected and the likelihood of failure increases. Construction is especially damaging to tree roots. Earthmoving and trenching can cut large portions of the root system. The probability of failure increases as the amount of the root damage increases. If 50 percent of a trees root system is damaged, it should probably be removed. Wounds created during construction can cause problems several years after the construction is complete. Tree roots damaged by decay or cutting may cause the tree to become more susceptible to wind throw. Soil depth and drainage also affect wind firmness. Trees rooted in shallow, wet soils are generally more prone to uprooting. Above-ground clues to poor root conditions include thin crowns, with dwarfed, off-color or yellowing leaves, stunted growth, soil compaction, erosion, construction activity, soil fill around the tree, discolored or resin-soaked wood at the root collar and fruiting bodies of rootrot fungi growing at or near the base of the trees. Not all mushrooms growing under trees are associated with root diseases. Familiarity with the fruiting bodies of common root-disease fungi is useful during tree hazard inspection. These fungi indicate rotting in the lower trunk or roots of infected trees.

MAINTENANCE HISTORY

As part of our assessment we looked at the maintenance history of these trees. Proper maintenance of a tree can greatly extend the life of a tree as well as the benefits that it provides. Improper tree maintenance, can do the opposite- reduce the effective life span of the tree.

In Ely, maintenance has been more as a result of responding to an issue than it has been towards proper tree maintenance. Pruning is the most common tree maintenance practice. Many trees in Ely have been pruned and maintained well over the years while others have undergone improper cuts, lions tailing (the practice of removing all interior branches), crown raising, and a lack of removing deadwood. Still other trees have not been pruned in many years. Pruning should be done with an understanding of tree biology. If improper cuts are made the impacts can effect the tree for the rest of its life. With the mature size of these trees it will be important to get a qualified tree professional to provide proper ongoing tree care.

Many communities will put the trees on a rotation schedule either by species or by area. This will insure that all trees have a visit to determine future needs. Proper maintenance can be directly correlated to the potential for risk.

PROCEDURES

We inspected 80 trees for the City of Ely. These trees were chosen, by Dixon Shelstad, because they had the most potential to cause problems in the future. This allowed us to look at these 80 trees more closely than had we had to look at all trees within the community.

While Dixon performed what is called a windshield inventor, we performed a Level 2 Basic Assessment. Just trying to make determinations as to what needs closer inspection was a critical step in narrowing our scope but also saving the City some money by looking more closely at fewer trees.

We used the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) tree risk assessment form to help us compile data and to assess the trees. It is a very detailed form and we have mailed all of the originals to you for future reference. As mentioned previously, we look closely at the crown and branches, trunk, and roots.

We use tools such binoculars, sounding mallets, probes, and measuring sticks to help us collect the information we need and to help us make our assessments.

We have paraphrased the data we collected into the spreadsheet at the back of this report.

DATA

Of the 80 trees we assessed, 8 were green ash trees (Fraxinum pennsylvanica), and the remainder were silver maples (Acer saccharinum). The average size of trees collected was nearly 34 inches in diameter, relatively large trees.

We also collected a condition rating on the trees based on a scale of 0-9. Zero being a dead tree and 9 being the perfect tree. The average tree rating for the trees we assessed was 3.6, relatively low for boulevard trees.

Crown and Branches

The most common issue associated with the crowns and branches of these trees was the existence of medium and large sized dead branches. We classified every dead branch that was between 2-5 inches in diameter as a medium sized dead branch and everything larger than 5 inches as a large dead branch. Thirty-six (36) of the trees assessed had large dead branches within their canopies. That makes up roughly 47% of the population. Two of these large dead branches also had signs of active decay. We saw many examples of the picture below. A collection of all the dead material that had recently come off the tree. Some of these dead branches were fairly large in diameter and could cause both human or property damage considering the heights they are falling from.

Twelve (12) of the remaining trees, or 15%, had medium sized dead branches ranging in size from 2-5” in diameter.

Only 4 trees had small dead branches which were smaller than 2” in diameter.

We also noted cavities, cracks, weak attachments, and included bark and some of the other trees.

It should be noted that we usually just recorded the worst offending part of the tree as it was most likely to influence the risk rating the most. For example, we did not note a small cavity in a tree branch canopy that also included large dead branches.

Trunk

There were not nearly as many issues with the trunks of the trees as there were with the canopies and the roots. Most of the trunk issues involved a degree of rot. Thirteen (13) of the 80 trees had some degree of trunk rot, mostly in association with the roots. We also noted major cracks, weak attachments, and included bark on some of the other trunks. It should be noted that we also noticed that many of the trees had cracks that had good response growth. Response growth is wood that develops in response to some structural stress to the tree. The tree can sense that his is a weak area and will grow more wood in that area to compensate for the deficiency. The picture to the right is a photo of a good branch/trunk union. It is U-shaped in nature and there is no evidence of overlapping bark(included bark). Many of the trunk/branch unions we saw were similar to the picture below, especially on the silver maples. If you look closely it can be seen that the two major limbs are growing against one another and have a weak union. This looks more like a V-shape than a U=shape as in the picture above. As they continue to grow they will also continue to push against one another. Any additional loading such as snow, ice, and wind, can cause the limb attachment to fail.

The picture to the left is also of an Ely street tree. This trunk has been obviously compromised and I believe this tree has been removed. This is what can happen when poor trunk/branch unions fail. The picture below is of a silver maple that has failed (not in Ely), most likely at the point of a weak attachment. The house and its occupants where clearly a target here.

A few trees also had a lean to them as illustrated in the picture to right. As long as the root plate was not lifting on the other side these trees were not an immediate concern but should be monitored for root plate lifting which would cause the tree to lean even more.

Roots

Probably the biggest issue of concern was the high number of mostly silver maple that had some degree of root rot. Twenty-four (24) or 30% of the trees assessed had signs of this malady. Much of this is a result of the trees outgrowing their rooting space and being pinched by the sidewalk or street curb, or having felt the impacts of construction. If they did not already have some form of root rot they were most likely to have issues with root flare damage without the corresponding root rot. We noted nine (9) cases of root flare damage without root rot. We also noted twelve (12) trees that had been fairly successful at growing new wood over these old wounds.

The above picture is an example of something we saw a lot of. Roots that have a small rooting area. Construction damage can also play a part in this root rot. Roots that are cut to make way for new curbs or the installation of new sidewalks can become compromised. Roots are what anchor in the tree so when we have cases of excessive root damage there is a greater chance the tree will fail. Below is another example of a tree that has significant root loss. It has lost some of its ability to hold the tree into the ground. Total tree failures can cause significant damage to homes, cars, or people.

Other issues we saw on the roots were stem girdling roots, sidewalk lifting, root plate lifting, and excessive sprouting.

The silver maple on the left has lost a lot of its root flare both to the curb and sidewalk. It is impossible to see how well the tree to the left is anchored into the ground because it is below ground, one of the challenges of root assessments. The tree on the right is in Whiteside Park and is a good example of what a proper root flare should look like.

RISK RATING

Each one of the tree we assessed was given a risk rating based on the issues we saw. Risk is not only the function of what is apparent in the tree but also of potential targets. It is the blending of these two which ultimately gives you that risk rating.

Nine (9) trees were given a risk rating of HIGH. That suggests that there is a high probability that these trees may fail within one year and that there exists the potential to damage life and/or property.

Thirty-five (35) trees were given a MODERATE risk rating. That suggests that over half the trees assessed had a risk rating of HIGH or MODERATE.

Thirty-six(36) trees were given a risk rating of LOW.

It should be noted that this assessment is only good for a 1-year time period suggesting most all of these trees should be re-assessed annually or as often thereafter as possible. Bear in mind these are mature trees with a propensity to root rot and to shed large dead branches. This issues may just take a year to reveal themselves and therefore frequent checks on tree health are recommended. These risk ratings also do not take into consideration mitigating some of these risks such as removing large dead branches before they fail.

MITIGATED RISK

Of the nine (9) trees that received a risk rating of HIGH, 2 of these could be mitigated to MODERATE by removing the large dead limbs that were apparent in the crown. However, it is recommended that the other HIGH risk trees be removed due to their general overall low condition ratings. The question is how many resources do you put into a tree that is on its way out versus simply removing it? By including a general condition rating of the trees we hope to make those decisions easier.

Most of the trees that did receive a MODERATE risk was due to large dead branches. These are easily rectified by pruning out the dead material. However, we run into the same issue as we did with the high risk trees. While the risk can be mitigated to LOW is it worth the time and expense to remove the highest risk (large dead branches high up in canopy) when the tree also has other conditions that might cause its life span to be cut short such as root issues?

Of the 36 trees with a LOW risk rating, all but 10 can be mitigated for. The remaining 10 still have a LOW risk even after some form of mitigation.

To be clear, if no mitigation takes place the trees will still have their original risk factor. But if mitigation does occur the tree risk factor may or may not decline based on other pre-existing conditions.

TREE VIGOR

One observation made during our inspections was the general overall low vigor of the trees. Vigor can be assessed by looking at the twig from its tip to the first ring of bud scale scars. This represents the current years growth and this technique can also be used to look at vigor in years past. Last year’s growth is the distance between the first ring of scars and the next ring of scars. This latest growth will often have a different color on the twig than the previous year. You can usually find the bud scale scars for about the last three years of growth. Compare the length of the current season’s growth with the last two or three to figure the growth rate.

While it was surprising to see the low vigor on most of these trees it was somewhat reassuring to see it on almost all trees. This leads one to suspect that environmental issues may be the cause. It may also suggest that many of these trees are reaching the end of their lifespan given the compromised root zone and impacts of construction such as new curbs of sidewalks being placed near the base of the tree.

Whatever the reason it is something that should be noted when looking at the long-term health of these trees.

MAPLE SYRUP TAPPING

We were surprised to see the holes left by the maple syrup tapping. Apparently this has been going on for as much as 10 years. We do not know the extent to which the trees have been tapped. There is a right way and a wrong way to tap. The right way is to use a small drill bit, less than ½ inch, use only 3 buckets on trees up to 30” and use no more than 5 buckets on trees over 30”. It has been demonstrated that drilling more holes does not correspond to more material.

I spoke to a number of experts regarding this phenomena and they all assured me that tapping only has a very small impact on the trees, even if it is done improperly. Tapping will not cause more deadwood in the canopy or cause root rots or large cracks or any of the other myriad of issues we saw on these trees. If the trees have issues it is more from the other impacts that have been previously mentioned than from the tapping. Perhaps an educational program to encourage proper tapping on these trees would be advisable. Such as where to place the holes, how big they should be, and how many buckets.

CONCLUSION

Hopefully the information contained in this report will help you understand the challenges that lie ahead and to make the best decisions available. Eventually the large silver maple trees will have to be phased out, but for how long can they stay? The healthier trees may still have 30 years or so of being a good contributor to the site but many more will have significantly less time. Deciding which trees to remove and which to preserve will be a blending of all factors. Tree species, tree size, location, risks, mitigated risks, issues, and the overall health of the tree.

I would recommend starting with the HIGH risk trees and MODERATE mitigated risk trees and look at the condition ratings. If it can be mitigated to a MODERATE risk and still have a higher condition rating that it may be worth the effort to put some resources into the tree such as proper pruning or a system of cables and braces. These practices can help the tree remain healthy and be less of a risk.

Even if the tree has a low risk but has a significant crack and a condition rating of 2 it might be best to remove the tree now rather than later. Vice versa, if the tree has a HIGH risk but can be mitigated and still has a higher condition rating it may be worth mitigation.

We would seriously recommend a system of cabling and bracing for some of these trees. There are some good candidates out there and we would be happy to help you make those decisions. It is a great way to keep the branches from moving too much to the point where they could cause the tree to fail. They are not to expensive to install but would require someone with knowledge of the product and tree dynamics to do it right.

Another point to understand here is the issue of a target. While we did the assessment we keep track of what type of targets we saw. Oftentimes it was people that came out of their homes to ask us what we were doing but we also did observe a low volume of cars and pedestrians. We did also observe the school track team running. For the most part traffic patterns were light but as we got closer to the school we noticed more people. But what really are the chances of a falling branch hitting a car, house, or person. We did our best to note when the house was a target of a potential large branch failure because it is important to understand that the homes are more occupied than the streets by people, especially if the large limb is over a bedroom. But the chances of a branch striking an individual walking on the sidewalk is low. There are just not enough people occupying the space under the trees for any extended period of time. This would be different if the site was a zoo or park or other high traffic area.

We hope this information helps and we welcome any questions you may have.

DATA TABLE

Site # |Species |DBH |Crown Notes |Trunk notes |Root notes |RISK |Mitigated risk |Action |Condition |Notes | |1- 5J |Maple, silver |29 |small dead branch(s) | | |LOW | | |5 | | |2-13J |Maple, silver |31 |cavities |large crack |root flare damage |MODERATE |N/A | |3 | | |3-14J |Maple, silver |48 |large dead branch(s) | |root flare damage |MODERATE |LOW |Prune |4 | | |4-45J |Maple, silver |26 |large dead branch(s) | |root rot |MODERATE |N/A | |3 | | |5-105J |Maple, silver |23 |medium dead branch(s) | | |LOW |LOW |Prune |5 | | |6-129J |Maple, silver |29 |medium dead branch(s) |healing crack |healing root flare damage |LOW |LOW |Prune |3 | | |7137J |Maple, silver |25 | |healing crack | |LOW |N/A | |4 | | |8-441J(2nd Ave) |Maple, silver |50 |medium dead branch(s) |included bark | |LOW |LOW |Prune |4 |cable | |9-140J |Maple, silver |44 |decay- large branches | |healing root flare damage |MODERATE |LOW |Prune |4 | | |10-227J |Maple, silver |24 |decay- large branches |trunk rot |root rot |HIGH |N/A | |2 |tapped | |11-235J |Maple, silver |31 |cavities | | |LOW |N/A | |5 |tapped | |12-230J |Maple, silver |22 |topping cuts- weak attachments | | |LOW |N/A | |5 |tapped | |13-230J |Maple, silver |40 | |healing crack |root flare damage |LOW |N/A | |4 | | |14-235J |Maple, silver |30 |large dead branch(s) |trunk rot |root rot |LOW |LOW | |4 | | |15-306J(Pattison) |Maple, silver |32 |included bark | | |LOW |LOW |Prune |4 |prune over garage | |16-440J |Maple, silver |20 | |healing crack | |LOW |LOW | |5 | | |17-313J |Maple, silver |17 | |trunk rot |root flare damage |MODERATE |N/A | |3 | | |18-338J |Maple, silver |21 |large dead branch(s) | |root flare damage |MODERATE |LOW |Prune |6 | | |18-422 |Maple, silver |25 |cavities | | |LOW | | |5 |tapped | |19-446J |Maple, silver |24 |large dead branch(s) |trunk rot | |MODERATE |N/A |Remove |2 |power lines in tree | |20-427J |Maple, silver |33 |included bark |healing crack | |LOW | | |5 | | |21-443J |Maple, silver |38 |included bark | | |LOW | | |6 |tapped | |22-434J(5th) |Maple, silver |31 |medium dead branch(s) |lean |root rot |MODERATE |LOW |Remove |2 |leaner | |23-515J |Maple, silver |32 |large dead branch(s) |included bark |root rot |MODERATE |N/A |Prune |5 | | |24-515P |Maple, silver |30 |large dead branch(s) |trunk rot |root rot |HIGH |N/A |Remove |2 | | |25-512P |Maple, silver |35 |small dead branch(s) | |healing root flare damage |LOW | | |5 |tapped | |26-504P |Maple, silver |42 |large dead branch(s) |included bark |root rot |HIGH |MODERATE |Prune |5 | | |27-427P |ASH, green |38 |large dead branch(s) | | |MODERATE |LOW |Prune |5 |remove hanging branches | |28-427 |ASH, green |34 |large dead branch(s) | | |MODERATE |LOW |Prune |4 |remove large dead branches over sidewalk | |29-345P |ASH, green |29 |large dead branch(s) |healing crack | |MODERATE |LOW |Prune |4 |remove large branches | |30-320P |ASH, green |26 |medium dead branch(s) | |root flare damage |MODERATE |N/A |Remove |4 |severed roots | |31-305P |ASH, green |36 | |major crack | |HIGH |N/A |REMOVE NOW |1 | | |32-305P |Maple, silver |? |medium dead branch(s) |weak attachment |root rot |MODERATE |MODERATE |Prune |4 |remove within 1 year | |33-236P |ASH, green |29 |large dead branch(s) |trunk rot | |MODERATE |MODERATE |Remove |2 |remove due to decay | |34-121P |ASH, green |26 |medium dead branch(s) |trunk rot |root rot |LOW |N/A |Remove |4 |re-check brown rot issues in 1 year | |35-106P |ASH, green |25 | |trunk rot | |MODERATE |N/A |Remove |2 |decay main trunk | |36-43P |Maple, silver |30 |large dead branch(s) |root rot | |LOW | |Prune |4 |deadwood | |37-11W |Maple, silver |48 |large dead branch(s) | | |LOW |LOW |Prune |5 |deadwood | |38-139W? |Maple, silver |38 | |healing crack |healing root flare damage |LOW | | |4 | | |39-W |Maple, silver |28 | |weak attachment | |LOW | | |4 |cable? | |40-W |Maple, silver |? |weak attachments |weak attachment | |MODERATE |LOW | |3 |cable? | |41-W |Maple, silver |31 |small dead branch(s) | |healing root flare damage |LOW | |Prune |5 | | |42-204Co |Maple, silver |? |medium dead branch(s) |trunk rot |stem girdling roots |LOW | |Prune |4 |power lines in tree | |43-225W |Maple, silver |59 |large dead branch(s) |weak attachment |root flare damage |HIGH |MODERATE |Remove |2 |multiple issues | |44-303W |Maple, silver |22 |large dead branch(s) | | |MODERATE |MODERATE |Remove |3 |decay in large branches | |45-304W |Maple, silver |26 |decay - medium dead branch(s) | |sprouting |LOW |LOW |Prune |5 |prune over house | |46-329Co |Maple, silver |27 |large dead branch(s) | |root plate lifting-older |MODERATE |MODERATE |Remove |3 |leaner with signs of root plate lifting | |47-312Co |Maple, silver |38 |large dead branch(s) | | |LOW |LOW |Prune |5 |deadwood | |48-323Co |Maple, silver |24 |medium dead branch(s) |healing crack |root rot |MODERATE | |Remove |4 |lack of stability | |49-248H |Maple, silver |34 |large dead branch(s) |trunk rot |root rot |LOW | |Remove |4 |re-evaluate in 1 year | |50-248H |Maple, silver |42 |medium dead branch(s) | |healing root flare damage |MODERATE |N/A |Remove |4 | | |51-246Co |Maple, silver |42 |branches with cracks |trunk rot |root rot |MODERATE |N/A |Remove |2 |signs of decay | |52-245Co |Maple, silver |26 | | |root rot |HIGH | |Remove |3 |cut roots 2 sides | |53-232Co |Maple, silver |45 |large dead branch(s) |included bark |healing root flare damage |LOW | |Prune |3 |leans into street prune dead branches | |54-213Co |Maple, silver |32 |medium dead branch(s) | |root rot |LOW | |remove |4 |re-evaluate in 1 year | |55-218Co |Maple, silver |37 |large dead branch(s) | |stem girdling roots |MODERATE |LOW |Prune |3 |LARGE dead branches, slight lean | |56-147Co |Maple, silver |38 |decay - medium dead branch(s) | |healing root flare damage |LOW | | |4 |advanced crown inspection needed | |57-102Co |Maple, silver |28 | |major crack | |LOW | |Remove |2 | | |58 |Maple, silver |44 |medium dead branch(s) |minor lean |root rot |MODERATE | |Remove |3 |lean and decay | |59 |Maple, silver |40 |small dead branch(s) | |root rot |HIGH | |Remove |3 | | |60 |Maple, silver |48 |large dead branch(s) | |root rot |HIGH | |Remove |2 |leans towards dental office | |61 |Maple, silver |36 |large dead branch(s) | |healing root flare damage |MODERATE |LOW |Prune |4 |prune dead branches | |62 |Maple, silver |24 |large dead branch(s) | |root rot |LOW | | |3 | | |63- 38H |Maple, silver |? |large dead branch(s) |trunk rot |root rot |MODERATE | |Remove |3 |multiple defects | |64-106H |Maple, silver |44 |weak attachments |lean |sidewalk lifting |LOW | |Remove |2 | | |65-112H |Maple, silver |30 |large dead branch(s) | | |MODERATE |LOW |Prune |4 |hangers and deadwood | |66 |Maple, silver |? |large dead branch(s) | | |LOW | |Prune |6 |deadwood | |67-303Ch |Maple, silver |45 |large dead branch(s) |major crack |root rot |MODERATE |N/A |Remove |3 |multiple issues, split will getr larger | |68-318Ch |Maple, silver |46 |large dead branch(s) | |healing root flare damage |MODERATE |LOW |Prune |5 | | |69 |Maple, silver |42 |split limb | | |MODERATE |LOW |Prune |4 |remove split limb soon, cable? | |70-336Ch |Maple, silver |? |large dead branch(s) | |root rot |MODERATE |LOW |Prune |4 |remove dead branches | |71-335Ch |Maple, silver |34 |large dead branch(s) |cankers |root flare damage |MODERATE |MODERATE |Remove |2 |multiple issues | |72-420Ch |Maple, silver |36 |weak attachments |healing crack |healing root flare damage |LOW | |Remove |3 |root cutting is significant | |73-439Ch |Maple, silver |49 |large dead branch(s) | |root flare damage |MODERATE |MODERATE |Remove |2 |multiple issues | |74 |Maple, silver |28 |large dead branch(s) | |healing root flare damage |MODERATE |LOW |Prune |4 |remove dead branches | |75-503Ch |Maple, silver |26 |large dead branch(s) | | |LOW |LOW |remove |3 |tree is dying back | |76 |Maple, silver |44 | |trunk rot |root rot |MODERATE |N/A | |3 |re-evaluate in 1 year | |77 |Maple, silver |34 |large dead branch(s) | |root rot |LOW |N/A |Remove |3 |root issues | |78 |Maple, silver |?large |large dead branch(s) |healing crack |root rot |LOW |N/A |Remove |3 |remove split branch or whole tree | | | | | | | | | | | | | |79 |Whiteside Park Basswood |48 |crack-large |major crack | |HIGH |N/A |Remove |1 |Remove ASAP | |

-----------------------

Species distribution of Silver maple (Acer saccharinum)

Species distribution of Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download