Dangerous trees in woodlands

[benedmonds]

Just been to look round a wood with a number of dead/dying mature trees. The site is used by the public dog walking etc.. If the trees were to fail they might hit the footpath but the risk is very low as occupancy is going to be very limited.

 

I'm going to advise making monaliths out of them to further reduce the risk but without doing QTRA is there another way or demonstrating sufficient "duty of care."

 

Am I right in giving them a low priority..? they've had other tree surgeons round who seem to want to remove any risk and are recommending felling anything that looks dodgy even if there's no target, one wouldn't even leave logs on site.. If they were in a garden or road I'd be saying it was urgent works but in a wood I feel that the chance of hitting a target is minimal so the works can wait.

[Highland Forestry]

Just been to look round a wood with a number of dead/dying mature trees. The site is used by the public dog walking etc.. If the trees were to fail they might hit the footpath but the risk is very low as occupancy is going to be very limited.

 

I'm going to advise making monaliths out of them to further reduce the risk but without doing QTRA is there another way or demonstrating sufficient "duty of care."

 

Am I right in giving them a low priority..? they've had other tree surgeons round who seem to want to remove any risk and are recommending felling anything that looks dodgy even if there's no target, one wouldn't even leave logs on site.. If they were in a garden or road I'd be saying it was urgent works but in a wood I feel that the chance of hitting a target is minimal so the works can wait.

 

 

Have a similar job coming up...

The dead/dying trees that were classed as high priority were the ones that would hit the path, drop limbs or deadwood on the path or were in striking distance of the path.

 

Outside of this the trees are going to be considered lower priority.

 

I recommended felling anything dead and deadwooding the larger trees that are already dropping deadwood on the path below.

 

I'm not sure how the whole duty of care thing goes, but IMO if there is a possibility a tree is going to either fail or drop a limb and the public is around, the public is most likley to be walking on the path, so it would be a higher priority.

[Bundle 2]

I'll QTRA them for you....

[Amelanchier]

Just been to look round a wood with a number of dead/dying mature trees. The site is used by the public dog walking etc.. If the trees were to fail they might hit the footpath but the risk is very low as occupancy is going to be very limited.

 

I'm going to advise making monaliths out of them to further reduce the risk but without doing QTRA is there another way or demonstrating sufficient "duty of care."

 

Am I right in giving them a low priority..? they've had other tree surgeons round who seem to want to remove any risk and are recommending felling anything that looks dodgy even if there's no target, one wouldn't even leave logs on site.. If they were in a garden or road I'd be saying it was urgent works but in a wood I feel that the chance of hitting a target is minimal so the works can wait.

 

 

QTRA is just a way of systematically justifying your decision. Not the decision itself - your professional judgements go into the calculations.

 

I think you are perfectly justified in assigning them a low risk. If the occupancy of the target zone is low in good weather, just think how low it is in bad weather when the tree is most likely to fail!

[davetaz]

Part of the issue is whether the path nearby is a public right of way. The owner of the woodland has a legal duty to maintain access for the public along a public right of way. A fallen tree blocking the path may result in members of the public reporting it to the authorities, who may then clear it away and bill the owner of the woodland for the work carried out! This may not sound terribly important but should be considered along side any risks of trees or limbs/deadwood hitting a member of the public.

I have heard of some woodland owners having to pay out cosiderable sums of money to have trees (considered dangerous or diseased etc) removed due to their proximity to PROW's.

Hope this is of some use

[benedmonds]

This may be of interest:

 

http://www.treeworks.co.uk/downloads/publications/TOWARDS_REASONABLE_TREE_RISK_DECISION_MAKING_NF_060907.pdf

Edited February 17, 2009 by benedmonds

[Bundle 2]

http://www.hortweek.com/news/bulletin/ArboricultureBulletin/article/881897/?DCMP=EMC-ArboricultureNews

[3dogs]

Have been working on a RSPB reserve this week, where the sycamores have been ring barked to produce habitats, many are in the later stages of decay and are begining to shed limbs. This is in an area where members of the public are activly encouraged to go. They seem to get away with this as its a nature reserve:confused1:

[David Humphries]

Woodlands are intrisicaly a cyclicle natural dynamic.

 

birth/life/death/rebirth etc etc etc

 

As such Mr Joe Public (who is seen to be of reasonable mind) would expect an element of the unknown.

 

We should not sanitize the woodland environment of dead wood and the associated risk, because this would lead to a critical imbalance in the woodland health, ergo - bio diversity.

 

This in turn would lead to a more than noticable reduction in associated species - fungi - invertabrates - birdlife - Dean lofthouse - etc etc

 

Of course remove/reduce/make safe the bleedin obvious and/or alter access.

 

Law does not expect/demand the complete molicoddling of our native nature seekers.

 

Balance is the key me thinks.

Edited February 19, 2009 by Monkey-D

[Arob]

"one wouldn't even leave logs on site.. "

 

Hi Ben,

I know it doesn't help answer your main question, but we did a similar job last year, there was evidence of vandalism and fire damage to trees so what we left on site was left as long lengths of large diamater sections with big stubs left on, this was to retain some dead wood on site whilst minimising the risk of kids setting fires or chucking stuff down the steep bank of the valley (lengths were left perpendicular to slope).

 

(Of course if it's easy to extract the one taking the logs might just want it for firewood!?)