Acer ventura

You might find this recent post from our social media useful... 𝗗𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘄𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸-𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁 We're elbow deep in v2 of VALID's risk model, and the Tree Risk App you use to carry out a Detailed Assessment. One of many substantial improvements in v2 is 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘸𝘰𝘰𝘥. As with the Policy section in our Tree Risk-Benefit Management Strategies. Let's take an ISO 31000 approach and 𝘌𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵. First… 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗗𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘄𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗛𝗮𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁 For a range of organisms, like insects, fungi, lichens, mosses, birds, mammals, and amphibians 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗧𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 In particular, mass damping (dissipating wind load). Here are 3 ways. 𝟭) 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘀 Deadwood adds weight. This increases inertia, which reduces sway. Especially in the upper crown. 𝟮) 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗦𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 Deadwood is stiffer than live wood. It dances to a different rhythm than live wood in the wind. This out-of-phase syncopation helps dissipate kinetic energy. 𝟯) 𝗜𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗲 Helps the tree smooth out the strain and stresses from wind loading. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗶𝘀𝗸 What does the data tell us about the risk from Deadwood falling? We know our annual risk of being killed or seriously injured from ALL trees or branches falling is 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯. That's so low, we're at greater risk driving on about a 400km/250mi round trip to visit friends for a weekend than from branches or trees falling over an entire year. Nearly all these deaths and serious injuries are from live wood. The risk from Deadwood HAS to be much lower. The overall risk from Deadwood falling is mind-bogglingly low. An annual risk somewhere south of 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙝𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙤𝙣. 𝗗𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘄𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀 Deadwood has already shed its lower order twigs, shoots, and branches. It falls in smaller lengths than live wood. If it falls, the footprint is much smaller than an equivalent diameter branch that's alive. Deadwood is not only 𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘳 than live wood, it's 𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘳. As Deadwood provides habitat benefits. And Deadwood reduces the Likelihood of Failure of branches and trees. Why is so much 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺 spent on removing the benefits from Deadwood? In v2 of VALID's risk model. Deadwood under 10cm diameter is a Tolerable or Acceptable risk. We're only going to carry out a Detailed Assessment in Very High, High and Moderate Occupancy where Deadwood is 10cm diameter or more, and longer than 1m. 𝗩𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗗 - 𝗜 - 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲 When you make Likelihood of Failure decision about Deadwood with VALID v2. We'll pre-colour V, A, L, and D for you. You make a decision about I for IDENTITY, and whether the Species Profile is green or red. That will determine whether the risk is 𝗧𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 or 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗧𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲.

A recent post had this old thread resurface. I've just re-read it, and see there's an issue with the link above. It takes you to the News page of the website. The post referred to was at the top of the News at the time. There are now more News posts, so the article is much further down. Here's a link that takes you directly to the post. VALID - Tree Risk Assessment Review

The Validator Tree Risk-Benefit Management Strategy, I shared in the previous post, answers these questions. If you're concerned about the risk from the trees, have you thought about asking the land owner whether they'll share a copy of the report?

We never use the S word in VALID. That's because to just about everyone, 'safe' means a complete absence of risk. If a tree falls and kills or injures someone, it can't have been 'safe'. The only 'safe' tree is a felled tree. So, you can't assume all the trees on the embankment are 'safe'. It sounds like a Validator carried out the assessment, under the protective umbrella of a Validator Tree Risk-Benefit Management Strategy. The risk from the remaining trees will be Acceptable or Tolerable, as outlined in the Strategy. Validator - TRBM Strategy NH v9.1.pdf

You have a marvellous opportunity to upgrade your approach to tree risk with VALID in the UK this summer. Find out more, and see what they're saying about VALID here. https://validtreerisk.help/Tree-Risk-Training If you manage or asses tree risk, here are 3 compelling reasons why VALID is simpler, clearer, and smarter. 1) You get a Tree Risk-Benefit Management Strategy Whether you manage or assess risk, the Strategy is your most valuable tree risk asset. Read more: Speaking truth to power 2) You'll manage and assess risk more effectively where it matters most In built-up areas, and busy roads. On average, more than one person, more than one vehicle, or more than one person AND more than one vehicle are exposed to the risk. Read more: Very High Occupancy 3) Likelihood of Failure - the toughest part of a risk assessment We've got 'Decision Hygiene' and 'Noise Reduction' built into it. Read more: Decision Hygiene & Noise Reduction

We've carried out a substantial overhaul and update of our t/R ratio guide. It's called, Why t/R ratios don't work You can download it with additional explanatory commentary here. https://validtreerisk.help/Why-tR-Ratios-Do-Not-Work

Hi Paul Mattheck's t/R = 0.3 is a terrible 'guide', though. t/r = 0.3 is a point on a spectrum of hollowness, that's only considering some of one part of the 'Form' in a tree's Safety Factor (which is what we're trying to figure out). t/R = 0.3 would be too much hollowness for a particular species of tree (Material properties). With particular crown dimensions and location (Load). And a particular stem diameter and geometry (Form). Improve the Material properties, and t/R = 0.3 would be fine. Or, lower the height or location (Load), and t/R = 0.3 would be fine. Or, increase the section modulus by widening the diameter, and t/R = 0.3 would be fine. Your critical t/R could be any ratio. It's just one part of the 'Form' in the tree Safety Factor puzzle.

Thanks, Rich It was a pleasure to have you come along.

Just following up on this because I've finished Validator training for North Yorkshire Council Tree Officers, and Basic Validator training for their Highways Officers. Now that North Yorkshire Council has customised and adopted VALID's Government Agency Tree Risk-Benefit Management Strategy. A problem you're likely to face with any tree risk assessment report which requires their consent is unless it's an emergency job, they're only going to accept VALID reports. Not least because the risk rating thresholds they're managing the risk to in their Strategy are VALID's take on the Tolerability of Risk Framework. The issue they have is they don't know what your 'Moderate' risk means - ie where it sits in ToR. The same would apply to any tree risk assessment system that's not using these risk ratings. My understanding is they'll not accept QTRA reports because of the known structural faults in that method. There's also an issue with any risk between 1:10 000 and 1:1 000 000 being labelled as a Tolerable risk by QTRA Users without them working out whether it is ALARP (As Low as Reasonably Practicable). In this region, the risk is ONLY Tolerable IF it is ALARP. Who is the Tree Officer who dismissed your report? - PM me with the reply they sent you if you'd rather not share publicly. I'm sure the last thing they'd want to do is come over as condescending and I might be able to help North Yorkshire Council with the wording when they refuse reports. Because of demand for Validator and Basic Validator training, we're going back to Harrogate this autumn. The dates will be up on the Training page in the next few weeks. You can stay in touch here. https://validtreerisk.help/Lets-stay-in-touch

Taking the Defect Out of Tree Risk - Article Update 'Taking the Defect Out of Tree Risk' is published in the current NZArb 'Tree Matters' magazine. Taking Defect Out of Tree Risk - NZArb 2022.pdf It first appeared in the UK's Arboricultural Association's (AA) Arb Magazine (Spring 2001). There are a couple of important improvements in the latest version. Like the Obvious Tree Risk Features Guide, which now includes construction damage. VALID - Obvious Tree Risk Features Guide v8.pdf We've also improved the VALID Likelihood of Failure mnemonic to prepare for v2 our Tree Risk App. In our excitement about dumping the red DEFECT and replacing it with the neutral DECAY in the AA version, we neglected how this affected some subheadings.

You might find this Australian article that reviews VALID, TRAQ, and QTRA useful. I shared it on our social media the other week, along with a commentary about VALID's risk model, and I've put it up on the News page of the website. https://validtreerisk.help/News The commentary also explains that none of the commonly used tree risk assessment systems have been 'peer reviewed'.

Hi Richy Just to chip in here, and give some balance to Julian's usual misrepresentation of VALID. It's this kind of stuff, and his disturbingly obsessive trolling of me, that got him a lifetime ban from the UKTC (the only person to ever have achieved this sanction). It's sad to see him still trolling me on a forum I seldom post on. Full disclosure I was the other main QTRA trainer from 2006 and drove most of QTRA's v5 (current version) development. I was also on the TRAQ (ISA Tree Risk Assessment BMP) committee in 2011. When I saw the matrices, I was so alarmed about this assessment method I bailed, and asked my name not to be included in the publication's list of acknowledgements. In 2016, I moved on from QTRA to develop VALID. One reason was I thought the whole tree risk thing could be done simpler, clearer, and smarter. My views on VALID are bound to be biased. Why not ask your Tree Officer why they prefer it? Or get in touch with the people who have written glowing testimonials. https://validtreerisk.help/Training Or search the Directory of Validators for someone in your area (Government Validators aren't listed in this). https://validtreerisk.help/Find-an-Arborist Though I'm now an ex QTRA trainer, it's worrying to see a QTRA User get so much wrong about it. For example, it isn't peer reviewed. The 2005 paper where it was introduced is VERY different to the current version. Just one of many examples, the lowest Probability of Failure was 1 in 1000. That makes every tree in a town or city an unacceptable risk by its own metric. Sorry the Harrogate Validator training was booked out ages ago. The new unitary North Yorkshire Council is going full metal VALID and is adopting our Tree Risk-Benefit Management Strategy, so there has been lots of interest. We're also running 2 Basic Validator training workshops for all the Highways Inspectors. I would've put another one on but I've been invited to be a keynote speaker, to talk about Tree Risk Management and Assessment, at the national Arboriculture Australia conference in Sydney at the end of May. I have to fly out there as soon as we're done in Harrogate.

We've updated our Summer Branch Drop Guide (v8), and have a short article on the News page about managing the risk. https://validtreerisk.help/News VALID - Summer Branch Drop (SBD) Guide v8.pdf

Can you help everyone manage tree risk? We're after high quality obvious tree risk feature photos for a free multi-language App we're developing called Tree Alert. Full credit will be given to you as the photo source. What is Tree Alert? It's an App version of the free Obvious Tree Risk Features Guide. You can download the guide here. https://validtreerisk.help/Risk-Management Here are wireframe sketches of how Tree Alert is currently looking. We're after high quality photos of: 1) Partial root failure 2) Broken or hanging branches 3) Cracks or splits 4) Advanced decline or death 5) Fungal brackets (an abundance of them) 6) Construction damage As you'll see from the Guide, they need to VERY obvious. If you can help by sharing any of these photos, please email them to [email protected] Why? Trees with the highest risk are the easiest to find. When a tree has a risk that might not be Acceptable or Tolerable, it'll usually have an obvious tree risk feature that you can't help but notice. High volume lower quality citizen science tree risk assessment is most likely to pick up 'red risk' trees before any scheduled visit from a trained Arborist carrying out 'Active Assessment.' In VALID's free Tree Risk-Benefit Management Strategies, this is called 'Passive Assessment'. Passive Assessment is a duty holder's most valuable risk management asset because it can be done by anyone and it's going on day in day out. How? Tree Alert will be used by members of the public and trained Basic Validators to alert duty holders or contact Arborists that they've seen a tree that might be 'dangerous'. The App user will be able to check what they're looking at against a rogue's gallery of obvious tree risk features. If it matches one of them, they geolocate the tree and take several photos of the tree in its setting, and of the obvious tree risk feature. The duty holder or contact Arborist will then get an alert with where the tree is and photos. A trained Arborist can then swipe right if they 'fancy' the tree and it needs a closer look, or swipe left if they reject the alert because it's not an obvious tree risk feature. Each alert will produce a brief photographic driven one-side report that will stand as a record of the alert.

Occasionally, during the night when it's very dark, from my bedroom window, I catch the street light reflecting off his night-vision goggles.👀