Tree Risk Management Form

[treeseer]

Referring to the ISA BMP on risk, I revised the US Forest Service form--as they recommended-- to make it more balanced and credible.

 

Does it look reasonable to you?

Tree Risk Management Form 130405.pdf

[David Humphries]

Guy, is your version to be compared against the US Forest Service Hazard Tree Evaluation form?

 

If so, yours does look less cluttered and easier (client friendly) to use.

 

Would the trees age class be listed in the contributions value column?

 

Should perhaps your client get a section allowing for the input of suggested re-inspection frequency?

 

Is/would there be a key attached so the client knows what any specific given values/bands mean?

 

 

 

.

[slack ma girdle]

I think that each of the strenghts should be given a value, and each of the weakness's a value. Then take one from the other, low value higher risk. It will make it easier for the public to understand.

[Paul Barton]

Hi Guy,

 

Does your form take account of the targets and/or occupancy level? I can't tell if the "location exposure" column might refer to that, or if that is more about wind/visibility.

 

How is size measured? Height / diameter / spread...or a combination of those?

 

What is the 'value' to be entered for "contributions"?

 

I like the simplicity of the form and imagine you have your own guidance notes for using it...I'm just trying to think how I would use it.

 

I like that idea of a balanced approach that acknowledges contributions when assessing risk.

 

The ISA BMP seems to have more of an emphasis on risk assessment based on likelihood and consequences of failure than your form.

[treeseer]

DH is your version to be compared against the US Forest Service Hazard Tree Evaluation form?

 

could be; that is what it was derived from

 

"If so, yours does look less cluttered and easier (client friendly) to use.

 

Thanks; imo having numbers or low-high ranges does clutter it, at the expense of adaptability

 

"Would the trees age class be listed in the contributions value column?

Could be, but species + size would indicate age, if that is important. Age might belong better under Condition maybe?

 

"Should perhaps your client get a section allowing for the input of suggested re-inspection frequency?

That would be under "Followup", right column.

 

"Is/would there be a key attached so the client knows what any specific given values/bands mean?

David I would expect the words to be written clearly enough to say what they mean. What do you mean by "bands"?

 

PB Does your form take account of the targets and/or occupancy level? I can't tell if the "location exposure" column might refer to that, or if that is more about wind/visibility.

 

I was thinking more of exposure of tree than thinking about target, which would be considered under Priority in the Mitigation column. Is that adequate consideration? maybe so?

 

"How is size measured? Height / diameter / spread...or a combination of those?

Whatever seems most relevant; spread is important sometimes and not others, for instance

 

"What is the 'value' to be entered for "contributions"?

Whatever the tree contributes that is worth noting.

 

"I like the simplicity of the form and imagine you have your own guidance notes for using it..."

 

Not really written notes just practice

 

"I like that idea of a balanced approach that acknowledges contributions when assessing risk."

 

Yes this is important isn't it

 

"The ISA BMP seems to have more of an emphasis on risk assessment based on likelihood and consequences of failure than your form."

 

Unfortunately, you have to look hard for wording on the need to assess contributions, and residual risk after mitigation, but the wording is in there. All the matrices you mention are tilted toward the negative and tend to obscure the process, so i tend to skim that section.