New assessment being done on damaged Davis Meeker Garry oak tree in Tumwater

Comments

20 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here

• JW

  Cut it down and make some nice furniture for the new city hall. Make a memorial at the stump so the local tree huggers can go weep and then let's move on from this endless story.

  Tuesday, October 6 Report this

• RondaLarsonKramer

  Just to clarify: the court decisions are not what are requiring the city to get permission. Rather, state statute and city municipal code are what require it. The court decisions merely told the mayor that these laws require the city to obtain permission before pruning or removal. Had the prior mayor, Debbie Sullivan, followed the law on her own initiative, the court would not have needed to be involved.

  Also, former Mayor Sullivan was asked by arborists (e.g., Ray Gleason) and community members for years to provide the maintenance needed to keep the tree in good shape. The branch failures may have been avoided if she had not decided to abstain from arranging regular maintenance on the tree. The current mayor has taken a different approach, thankfully, and is following the law and appears committed to arranging maintenance that will keep the tree in good shape and reduce risk.

  Tuesday, October 6 Report this

• Boatyarddog

  @JW! YOU have a serious ugly attitude.

  The tree never hurt anything but your fragility.

  Suck it up buttercup!

  Tuesday, October 6 Report this

• 2theroots

  I really don't understand why this article is quoting the former mayor who we already know hates the tree. I had hoped this article would ask the current Mayor why the arborist suggestions had not been followed to prune the tree to reduce the load of the branches so this very thing would not happen. That to me would be the real story.

  Wednesday, October 7 Report this

• OlyBlues

  I was wondering the same thing as 2theroots. Why wasn't Mayor Dahlhoff interviewed as to why the recommended pruning has not taken place? That may have prevented this branch failure. I have heard enough about former Mayor Sullivan and her poor decision making with the tree as well as insatiable desire to destroy it. I'm sure she was in near excited delerium reading branches failed in the windstorm. Hopefully she has found some healthy activities to concentrate on in retirement to feed her desire to kill living species.

  Wednesday, October 7 Report this

• NutTreeLoop

  Former Mayor Sullivan was right all along. Setting public safety as the paramount priority was the right thing to do. The tree is a hazard and will remain such even after additional pruning.

  That said, one wonders why Mayor Dalhoff hasn't taken action to carry out the trimming recommended by Prager & Associates?

  Apparently, Mother Nature didn't need permission from the Tumwater Historic Preservation Commission to act on her own.

  Every tree that has and will bless the face of this earth grows old and eventually dies. Let's just make sure this one doesn't take a few human beings along the way to its ultimate and unequivocal destiny.

  Wednesday, October 7 Report this

• TheGreatAnon

  Drop the tree before it kills someone.

  Wednesday, October 7 Report this

• RondaLarsonKramer

  I’m just wanting readers to be aware that former Mayor Sullivan has just commented on this article under the pseudonym “NutTreeLoop” to say that she was right all along and to criticize the current mayor. I hope OlyBlues can write another comment for us about this…

  Wednesday, October 7 Report this

• NutTreeLoop

  Dear Ms. Kramer, I am not former Tumwater Mayor Sullivan. I am a male, 73 years old, and have never lived in the City of Tumwater. Nut Tree Loop is a residential street in the City of Olympia.

  Thursday, October 8 Report this

• Yeti1981

  What I find remarkable about this entire situation is that the original arborist warned of structural defects and the likelihood of future failures, classified the tree as high risk, and recommended removal. Those concerns were serious enough that the former mayor acted on them. Now, following another professional assessment identifying areas needing load-reduction pruning, we have experienced additional branch failures in one of those very areas.

  I recognize that subsequent arborists disagreed with the original risk classification and recommended preservation with mitigation. But that doesn't make the original safety concerns imaginary, nor does it justify the personal attacks against the former mayor.

  The public deserves an explanation of what mitigation was completed, what remains outstanding, and whether the current management plan adequately protects people using the roadway. We should be evaluating the professional evidence and the city's decisions, not turning a legitimate public safety question into a personality contest.

  Thursday, October 8 Report this

• NutTreeLoop

  Excellent commentary Yeti1981.

  This whole matter illustrates how reasonable minds can differ over the level of risk a community is willing to accept.

  It is certainly reasonable for people to be passionate about protecting a grand old historic tree. But it is equally reasonable for one to give paramount concern towards eliminating an uncertain, but serious risk to public safety.

  And we now know for certain that risk is real and still lurking.

  Perhaps this subsequent assessment will offer additional measures to lower that risk to levels acceptable to the community. But perhaps not.

  In the end, we must remind ourselves that this is only informed guesswork. Mother nature often has a habit of surprising us without consulting with the arborists first.

  Thursday, October 8 Report this

• OlyBlues

  It does appear either NutTreeLoop or Yeti1981 are the former Mayor based on their comments,. Perhaps they both ae and neither scenario would surprise me. Both comments are ripe of an "I told you so" attitude that was prevalent in Mayor Sullivan's administration and business dealings. Had massive developers needed a tree mafia hitman, she would have been in high demand. What is true is that Mayor Sullivan had tunnel vision and due to that, she failed to "read the room" as one would say. She was too focused on death and destruction of the Garry Oak Tree to even consider other options. She was in essence the "Tree Terminator" and reveled in her villianous persona. It cost her her reputation, all of her political capital, and the respect she had gained over many years serving Tumwater as a council member. To whomever Yeti and NutTreeLoop are, yes the tree is old. There is also an updated arborist study that spells out maintenance recommendations so we can co-exist with this 400 year old tree that was here long before us. There is enough death and destruction of lands in Thurston County. Preserving this tree at all costs should be a priority. It brings joy to many people's lives. Perhaps if former Mayor Sullivan practiced more joy in her life, she too could see how the tree benefits wildlife while paying tribute to the Cowlitz Tribe and this area's rich history.

  Friday, October 9 Report this

• NutTreeLoop

  OlyBlues, on what basis do you assert that either I or YETI1981 are former Mayor Sullivan? Please provide here the specific evidence you have to that effect. Of course, the fact that you name both of us as "suspects" belies the fact that you just made this up out of thin air.

  And Ms. Kramer should be careful. As an attorney she should know the definition of defamation, especially when it's done with malice as is the case here. Ms. Kramer has falsely claimed that Ms. Sullivan is posting here with a pseudonym in an effort to demean and debase her in a public forum. And there is a whole body of other comments in other JOLT articles she has made about the mayor that speak to her malicious intent.

  I don't know who OlyBlues is, nor will I speculate. I respect the fact that this forum allows JOLT readers to make their remarks anonymously. But the nature of his or her posts, along with Ms. Kramer's and others, testify to the deliberate mean-spirited and uncivil behavior tree supporters employ to intimidate those who share different views about this grand old oak tree.

  Once again, and with more force, former Mayor Sullivan acted responsibly to prioritize public safety over other local values when she pursued removal of the tree on the basis of the original arborist report. This current dropping of a massive limb, just a few years after another similar event serves as testimony she made the right call.

  By the way, the author of this article knows exactly who I am because Mr. Stusser and I have exchanged personal emails.

  Friday, October 9 Report this

• longtimeresident

  All kinds of trees fell or dropped branches on the day of the storm. Are we supposed to cut down all the trees that dropped branches; obviously the trees that fell were removed so roads could be opened up again. This whole conversation makes me wonder who the newcomers are to this area of the state. We have trees all over, and sometimes some fall. So what........

  Friday, October 9 Report this

• NutTreeLoop

  longtimeresident, I lived in the PNW for nearly 37 years, most of which as a resident of Olympia. So, please don't classify me as one of your "newcomers." I also have worked extensively on forest practices and habitat conservation issues in Washington State. So, I am very familiar with the landscape, although I am neither a forester nor arborist.

  The problem here is one of risk and liability. The David Meeker Garry Oak, which has a history of major branch failures, overhangs a high-volume urban roadway. Any branch failure there could have very tragic consequences. The mayor's emergency order to remove the tree was based upon an arborist's report and recommendation that predicted future branch falls similar to the 2023 failure.

  With such a written report, the mayor was obligated to act or incur liability for failing to act should someone be injured or killed in any future incidents. Her response was reasonable.

  The Prager report and subsequent court action gave the city cover to walk away from the removal order. However, the fact that there are conflicting assessments means there is still possible liability on the part of the city should something tragic happen.

  Even more disconcerting is that there is a fairly high possibility of a large branch falling onto a busy highway. This could happen at any time. The city has addressed this risk by lowering speed limits and posting warnings, but these actions are also evidence that the city is aware of the unique risk and chose not to remove the tree or at least cut away the overhang.

  If you as a private homeowner received an arborist's report and recommendation to remove an identified hazard tree on your property that threatened your home and family, would you not act?

  I will say it again...all of the vitriol and enmity being directed at the former mayor is unwarranted and undeserved. It is reasonable to disagree with her initial course of action, but no one should criticize her for making the safety of the public her key priority.

  Friday, October 9 Report this

• TheVirtualOne

  Yeah, I really want to spend even more money on this tree. Heck, let’s set up a GoFundMe so the arborists, lawyers, and politicians can keep this grift going for another 59 years.

  Tuesday, October 13 Report this

• NutTreeLoop

  The October 14th Risk Assessment is now available. Here is the arborist's conclusion:

  "The Davis-Meeker Oak lost two large diameter branches on the southwest stem on September 25, 2026, during a severe weather event. The branch failures resulted in an estimated crown loss of 32 percent. This level of crown loss in a mature tree poses a significant threat to its overall health and, on its own, may result in decline."

  "The tree was reassessed for risk four days after the failure. Ten defects of concern were assessed for risk. There is a high risk of a branch failure onto Old Highway 99 causing severe injury to drivers in the next three years."

  "Risk mitigation options include: (1) retaining the tree and reducing its risk from high to moderate through a combination of target management, reduction pruning, supplemental support systems, root zone enhancement, and monitoring; (2) converting the tree to a wildlife snag thereby reducing its risk to low; or (3) removing the tree to eliminate all risk."

  "The selected risk mitigation strategy should account for the tree's history of branch failures during extreme weather events, the occurrence and severity of which cannot be predicted with certainty."

  Simply put...the tree has lost a third of its canopy and exposed the branches overhanging the highway to likely failure. Without tree removal or a severe reduction of the canopy, the only way to protect motorists on old highway 99 is to shut it down during storm events. Even that is no guarantee that someone won't get hurt.

  https://www.ci.tumwater.wa.us/home/showpublisheddocument/28047/639276744286341277?fbclid=IwY2xjawU_HdZleHRuA2FlbQIxMABwZG9mAWJyaWQRMXV4MWlVRnlqMGZ2Q28ybFpzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEePac62N6-iPH5o54TyXIqxgq941IkcKem_85vj1CWUEO6YXgRrtrk9HeJaWA_aem_SAGNoUATzqHekYHZB8qHvQ

  Friday, October 16 Report this

• NutTreeLoop

  A bit more on this...

  Option #1 as recommended by the City Historic Commission, would reduce the level of risk from HIGH to MODERATE. In order to achieve that the city will have to implement something called "target management." This is essentially a euphemism for "keep everyone the eff away from the thing, so they don't get killed by a falling branch."

  Keep in mind the report says this: "There is a high risk of a branch failure onto Old Highway 99 causing severe injury to drivers in the next three years."

  So, they've put the fence around the tree back up to keep people away from it. But since you can't fence off Old Highway 99, the "remedy" there is to close the highway whenever there is a potential storm with strong winds.

  Just imagine for a moment if you are the person assigned to deciding whether to close the highway or not. What fun that will be.

  Of course, this is in addition to spending around $120,000 for pruning, installing supplemental supports and treating the root zone. Even at that, the arborist still says the tree may not recover from the damage sustained several weeks ago, due to full a third of its crown having been ripped away.

  The city will have to decide how much risk it will accept in order to attempt to save the tree.

  But, once again, all of this exonerates former Mayor Sullivan for choosing the no-risk option on the basis of the first arborist's report. It's disingenuous for anyone to question her judgment and motivation in that regard, especially in light of this latest risk assessment. Reading between the lines, the arborist is saying, "time to take the old girl down."

  Saturday, October 17 Report this

• RondaLarsonKramer

  @NutTreeLoop/Debbie Sullivan: the lady doth protest too much, methinks.

  Sunday, October 18 Report this

• NutTreeLoop

  RondaLarsonKramer, once again you falsely assert that I am former Mayor Sullivan. I am not. But since you keep repeating the claim I challenge you to provide your evidence here.

  As an attorney, surely, you know the implications of repeatedly making false accusations in a public forum. You might want to reread the WA State Bar Association's Rules of Professional Conduct.

  But an even greater concern for me is your reckless disregard for the safety of the public.

  This most recent assessment finds that "there is a high risk of a branch failure onto Old Highway 99 causing severe injury to drivers in the next three years."

  That's a pretty serious conclusion and it supersedes the previous assessment. It's a new finding because the loss of the westerly third of the tree's crown now exposes the easterly side of the tree to greater risk of failure.

  One wonders what the city's insurer and attorney now think of this dangerous liability. Especially that it is now in writing in a report by a licensed arborist.

  Closing down Old Highway 99 every time the city suspects a major storm might threaten a deadly branch failure is inherently risky business. Weather in the PNW is notoriously unpredictable.

  Of course, the city will have to make its choice about how much risk it is willing to accept. But if someone gets hurt or killed by a branch falling on a car traveling the old highway, the city and its citizen taxpayers will be responsible.

  Yours truly,

  Not Former Mayor Sullivan

  Sunday, October 18 Report this