Assessing tree risk is one of the more complex functions certified arborists must perform. The simple fact is that tree failures are, in large part, unpredictable. To help our profession, the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) has developed some standards to the process of evaluating tree risk and there is now a “qualification” for arborists to acquire. Being the inquisitive individual that I am, I’ve attended the class and passed the test to become TRAQ qualified.
The Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) is a new program just launched by ISA in the spring of 2013. The goal of the program is to standardize the process of assessing tree risk and to identify individuals who have proven they are competent of the process. I personally agree that this was a needed standard. I don’t really have the need to perform these formal assessments very often so it’s not really affecting my day to day professional life often, but I do believe this is a valuable addition to our industry. To earn the qualification, you must be a certified arborist in good standing, attend a two day training workshop and pass the test at the end of the class.
The old, unofficial process, used a form that assigned a numerical value to describe the risk of a tree. Given the unpredictable nature of the subject matter, often lay people would misinterpret the form results or try to use the numbers as a system to determine whether a tree should be removed. There was too much variability and miscommunication in the outcome. The new form abandoned the number system and instead uses words like: probably, likely, somewhat likely. The forms themselves are not meant to be interpreted by lay people, but are targeted to insurance professionals and arborists. The concept is that the form is basically a mechanism for capturing field notes. The arborist would not supply the form to the homeowner, but rather would provide a written report (that could say anything) and the standardized form is just back up material in the event that an insurance company needs more details or, heaven forbid, lawyers get involved.
The new form also does a better job of dealing with individual potential targets that might be hit if the tree fails. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The same concept applies to risk. If a tree falls and nobody gets hurt, is it really a risk?
As a company, I have required that our arborists start using the new form and process whenever formal tree assessments are done. And, I have began work on a new inner company formal process to accompany the risk assessment form. The other process looks at a more complete tree analysis rather than just risk. Many times we are asked our advice for what is the best thing to do for the trees to promote a more functional canopy over the property. A risk assessment only paints half the picture in this scenario. A tree can be dying and providing virtually zero benefits to the community but not be a risk. In helping determine when to remove and replant trees, we need a more complete process beyond just what is risky. Our new process will take into account a trees overall canopy coverage compared to trunk size, density of foliage (ability to provide shade), beauty, and long term survival prognosis.