Thursday, October 1, 2026
The City of Tumwater is now working to mitigate the risk of keeping the historic Davis-Meeker Garry oak tree.
The future of the tree has been uncertain for a while since Mayor Debbie Sullivan decided the city would remove the tree due to safety concerns. Because of public opposition, the mayor decided to reverse her decision so the city could get a second opinion about the tree.
City staff, together with arborists from Todd Prager and Associates, which the city hired to reassess the tree, met with Tumwater City Council on Tuesday, March 11, to discuss the firm’s findings and recommended strategies to keep the tree standing.
The assessment found the tree only posed a “moderate” risk rating at most. With mitigation strategies, the risk rating could be reduced.
The firm recommends a combination of the following strategies: crown reduction pruning, supplemental support systems, root management and continued monitoring.
Prager highlighted crown reduction pruning as being the most important strategy they could pursue.
“What crown reduction does is it helps bring the kind of mass of the tree in or makes it smaller, so you have less surface area that is exposed to things like wind forces," he said.
"You have less mass at the exterior of the tree and bring that center of gravity in so that failures are reduced potentially."
City Administrator Lisa Parks presented a spreadsheet detailing the initial costs of all the strategies the firm identified in its report.
Should the city follow the firm’s recommendations, the estimated costs would range from $45,000 to $85,000.
The spreadsheet noted most of the expenses are associated with tasks that would only need to happen once. Recurring tasks include cable inspection, mulching and monitoring.
Parks said there is still a lot of work to do before they decide what final plan to pursue in retaining the tree.
For example, she said if the city decides to use a support system, it would still need a lot of data to figure out the best approach and to analyze the cost and benefits of each option.
She added the city would have to figure out if it's going to find contractors or use its own staff to work on the plans.
The city has also decided it would secure permits from the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation before implementing any plans.
Council member Joan Cathey asked what the city’s next steps are going to be. Parks said staff would need a few weeks or months before returning to the council with a specific plan.
When asked by Council member Michael Althauser where the city would get the money to maintain the tree, Parks said it would likely from the general fund.
Parks added the city is also looking for an urban forester, a position partially funded by the city’s stormwater funds.
Council member Eileen Swarthout asked if the city could open a special fund to collect donations for the tree’s maintenance. Parks, along with the city’s finance director and attorney, agreed they could pursue that option.
Council member Kelly von Holtz said it would be a good opportunity to put the city’s Tree Board and Historic Preservation Commission to work so they could develop a plan on how to raise funds.
Sullivan added they would need to come up with a funding plan that would still be effective even in the years to come even if the community or the future council lose interest in keeping the tree.
“Like so many things, everybody's enthusiastic in the beginning. Are they still going to be enthusiastic five years from now, 10 years from now?” Sullivan asked.
“To maintain this tree, we have to have a very substantial plan for as long as that tree stands.”
15 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
ArborDreama
Unfortunately the cost table noted within this article doesn’t go into enough detail. Some costs are just wild guesses and may not even be needed. Adding all the costs from the table misrepresents the actual costs of mitigation to acceptable risk levels. Frequently Moderate risk trees may require no mitigation at all, based on the discretion of the tree manager (aka city). The table also includes the estimated cost of removal which should be omitted for the al la carte mitigation options. Quite a bit of risk can be reduced with simple skilled reduction pruning, a cable could be installed at the same time, saving even more funds.
Additionally the same level of monitoring will not be needed on a reoccurring basis and can be quite cost effective.
The passion for saving this tree started in 1984 when it was saved by citizens advocating for a minor change of the highway expansion project to accommodate the tree. This passion for preserving this historic tree has continued for over 40 years, this is also some of the reason it’s the only tree on Tumwaters Historic Registry.
Monday, March 17, 2025 Report this
NutTreeLoop
I get it. And I dearly hope the City can save this historic tree and ensure public safety at the same time.
However, we should not minimize the costs and risks involved, especially given that there are now two reports that have each identified the presence of substantive risks that require mitigation. In addition to the physical work necessary to lower these risks, the City will now inherit a documented liability into perpetuity.
If you are in the City's shoes and you decide to preserve the tree you are are going take significant steps to demonstrate your due diligence in order to avoid a potential costly loss in the future. It will cost more than expected, so be ready for that.
Perhaps what disappoints me most as an outside observer of all of this is the enmity directed at city officials because of their initial focus and priority on protecting the safety of the public. They made an initial choice based upon a reasonable analysis that found the tree poses risks. While the second report lessens the severity of these risks, they are still present and require action on the part of the City.
I wish everyone the best of luck at resolving this. Kudos to the City, and especially the Mayor, for being willing to listen to the public and weigh its chosen course of action with the best of intentions for all involved.
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 Report this
2theroots
They Mayor really does not get it and thinks this is just some "fad" of public interest. A lot of money has already spent going in circles because she could not just focus from the beginning on doing what the public wanted: saving the tree. Creating a fund people can donate into will provide pretty much all that is needed for the tree.
I am glad the truth has come out - that there IS a way to save the tree.
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 Report this
NutTreeLoop
A quick response to 2theroots's comment:
This matter started because an 18 inch diameter branch broke off and fell 43 feet from the crown to the ground. Had anyone been standing under the tree at the time they would likely have been killed, or at the very least, seriously injured.
This has never been about "saving the tree." It's about protecting the public. The original report found the tree at high risk for additional fallen branches. Left as it is, we can guarantee similar branch falls will happen in the future. I don't blame the Mayor at all for giving priority to public safety. Any reasonable responsible person in her position would do the same. Public safety is not a "fad."
The second report found that with properly engineered mitigation, it's possible to reduce the risk...not eliminate it, but lessen it. That's good, but it will cost money to make the risk more tolerable and it will not be an absolute guarantee. It will require ongoing vigilance.
Of course the best solution for all concerned would be to implement all of the recommended measures, paid for mostly by voluntary donations from the community and beyond. The tree's historic value doesn't stop at the Tumwater city limits. I'd be happy to make a contribution of my own if that's how things move forward.
Wednesday, March 19, 2025 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
@NutTreeLoop, thanks for offering to donate. But your comments indicate a lack of awareness of the facts in this case. Our public records requests revealed a trove of documents showing that the mayor and city administrator (who previously worked in leadership at the Port of Olympia) created the public danger claim out of whole cloth. Almost two years ago, the city arborist stated in an internal email that the tree was not high risk but that it needed more assessment. The follow-up assessment by Tree Solutions also did not find that it was high risk. Tree Solutions recommended retaining the tree. But out of the blue (apparently after the city administrator talked to him), the city arborist issued a subsequent report contradicting all this. And the report was internally inconsistent as well, because it stated the tree "is in very good health." See Report of Kevin McFarland here: https://www.davis-meeker-oak.org/arborist-viewpoints. The owner of Tree Solutions, who is also one of the fathers of the modern tree risk assessment method, later called McFarland's report an embarrassment to any knowledgeable arborist. To form an informed opinion, you can read our 8/30/2025 opening brief, which is available here: https://www.davis-meeker-oak.org/legal-documents. I also recommend you review the documents here: https://www.davis-meeker-oak.org/public-records-request-docs. The tree danger claim was the mayor's pretext for removing a tree that is an inconvenience for the Port of Olympia, which has plans to expand the Olympia Airport. (Tall trees get in the way of airport expansion). As to plans to expand the airport, you can read about that here: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/stop-olympia-airport-growth.
Thursday, March 20, 2025 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
I might add that the mayor hired a PR firm that has trolled us previously in our efforts to challenge her mishandling of the Davis Meeker oak. The tone and content of NutTreeLoop's comments, as well as the timing, suggest to me that they could be written by her PR firm.
Thursday, March 20, 2025 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
If anyone is needing this information in the future, I would like to provide the full title of the lawsuit that helped save the tree: Save the Davis-Meeker Garry Oak v. Debbie Sullivan, in her capacity of Mayor of Tumwater, Thurston County Superior Court Case No. 24-2-01895-34, and Washington Court of Appeals Case No. 58881-1, Division Two.
Thursday, March 20, 2025 Report this
NutTreeLoop
Dear Ms. Kramer,
Your incorrect suggestion that I am affiliated with the Mayor's PR firm is utter nonsense and documents the unfortunate conspiracy-laden refuse that has sadly suffused the reasonable efforts to save the tree.
I assure you that I am a private citizen with no ties, contractual or otherwise, to either the Mayor of the City of Tumwater. In fact, I've never met the Mayor. Heck, I don't even live in Washington state. Why, on earth, would you, a professionally trained attorney, make such an unsupported and non-factual statement on a public comment board?
Please, let's not gloss over the fact that an 18" diameter branch came crashing down through the canopy to the ground. It's not that the tree is going to die anytime soon. It's that the tree is structurally unsafe in its present condition. That shouldn't be surprising for a tree that's hundreds of years old. That's what a "moderate risk" represents.
As I noted above, I am in favor of keeping the tree, provided all of the recommendations of the TP&A report are implemented. I just don't think all the enmity and conspiracy theories generated about this are at all warranted or appropriate.
Thursday, March 20, 2025 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
@NutTreeLoop. Thanks for your feedback and for this spirited discussion, which is enlightening to all, hopefully. That's great to know you are not the mayor's PR agent. :) I want to correct something you wrote. You said, "It's that the tree is structurally unsafe in its present condition. That shouldn't be surprising for a tree that's hundreds of years old." Interestingly, it's quite the opposite. When certain tree species get old (e.g., oak trees), they get more sturdy than younger trees of that same species. I know it sounds counter-intuitive. But it's the way oak trees work. The best example is of a tree on the coast in a state that is subject to hurricanes. It is very old and has a big cavity. It has remained standing during hurricanes while nearby younger trees with no cavity did not. The reason is physics. This example is from a study by Frank Rinn, a world-renowned expert on the physics of old trees. See https://davis-meeker-oak.org/facts-about-oak-trees#mature-trees-become-more-stable-with-age. The way a tree grows is that it puts its energy into growing tall until it reaches the maximum height for its species. That's what it's doing for the first, say, 75 years of its life. After that, all its energy goes into making its girth wider. And with wider girth comes increased physical stability. That is why the really old trees are far more stable than young trees in many species. As to the branch that fell on the Davis Meeker oak, our arborists believe that prior faulty pruning may have weakened this branch. There is a possibility that prior pruning of higher branches caused a pruned branch to fall onto the lower branch that then fell in May 2023. That lower branch may have cracked slightly as a result of the prior pruning. And then, when the weather was right (as it was on that day in May 2023) the branch let go of the stem through what's called sudden branch drop. That is a phenomenon that occurs in many oak species. It happens randomly and is not understood well. It is when a healthy branch drops suddenly and unexpectedly after a weather pattern entailing very wet, cool weather, followed by a sudden increase in temperature. Rainy cold weather followed by a sudden warming. This weather pattern was exactly what occurred when the Davis Meeker oak branch dropped. So you see, we non-arborists may think it's a simple case of tree hazard, but it's far more complex than that. And as Frank Rinn's research shows, the older the oak tree, the more stable it is. We're so lucky, because that means we get to enjoy the Davis Meeker oak for perhaps hundreds of years longer. I might add that the branch drop in the Davis Meeker oak case was manipulated quite a bit by Lisa Parks and Debbie Sullivan. Our public records requests revealed photos of the branch on the ground after it had fallen earlier that day. It was clear that it did not land in the road, contrary to what they claimed. It landed next to the tree on the dirt. I say this because the danger of a tree depends on the target location. In the case of the Davis Meeker oak, the arborists (the ethical arborists that is--not Kevin McFarland) found that targets can be minimized by simply removing a couple parking places under the tree. The road as target is not actually as much of a risk as you might think, especially with some minor pruning that can and should be done. This is based on a couple factors, one being the location of the branches above the road and how they are likely to fall. Especially after some minor pruning, if they fall, the direction of their fall will likely be such that they land on the dirt next to the tree, just like the branch did in May 2023. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to explain all this, which is stuff I have learned in this year-long effort to save this tree.
Thursday, March 20, 2025 Report this
NutTreeLoop
Dear Ms. Kramer,
Let's keep this simple...an 18 inch diameter branch fell 43 feet to the ground underneath the tree. Anyone standing under the tree at the time would have been killed or severely injured.
Now, the latest arborist analysis and report finds the tree is at "moderate risk" for branch falls in the future and recommends specific measures be undertaken to lower the risk. If the City is to leave the tree standing it has no choice other than to meet or exceed the recommendations in the report. To do less would be negligent and expose the City and its officials to significant liability.
It's not any more complicated than that.
Large, heavy branches of old oaks can and do fall all the time, particularly during hot, dry summers, or following times of drought. "Sudden branch drop syndrome" is a common occurence for large, older oak trees. The tree doesn't necessarily have to be diseased or decaying.
https://urbanforestprofessionals.com/blog/beware-of-sudden-branch-drop/
https://www.arboristnow.com/news/what-is-sudden-branch-drop-syndrome
Friday, March 21, 2025 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
That's a lot of "what ifs". There is no such thing as zero risk trees. We would all live in an environment with only shrubs if we were to shoot for that. We all take a moderate risk every time we get behind the wheel. We might mitigate that by driving the speed limit and wearing a seatbelt, but either way, it's not zero risk to drive a car.
Saturday, March 22, 2025 Report this
NutTreeLoop
Dear Ms. Kramer,
You are correct that there are no "zero risk trees." Nothing in life is zero risk. But we as human beings act all the time to lower risk of injury or death. That's why we have building and fire codes, traffic safety laws and standard engineering practices.
There is a substantive difference between low, moderate and high risk of sudden branch branch drop syndrome. That's what the TP&A report is all about. Now that it's in writing it can't be ignored. Were this tree out in the middle of nowhere, we would have lttle to be concerned about. But it sits on public property accessible to almost anyone.
With a well documented dangerous branch drop and an expert report stating there is a moderate risk for future branch drops, the City has no choice but to act. Either remove the tree entirely, or mitigate the risk. But taking "zero" action because there are no "zero risk trees" would be reckless and irresponsible.
My bet is that the work recommended will likely cost northward of $85,000, although I suspect ongoing inspections and maintenance into the future will be de minimus. Given the value of the tree to the community, I think the investment is worth the money.
My main point remains, neither the Mayor, nor the city staff deserve the enmity that has been directed at them. In the face of an observed risk to public safety they have acted reasonably and rationally. Unsupported conspiracy claims about wanting to remove the tree for airport expansion are unprofessional, almost as unprofessional as you falsely accusing me of being on the Mayor's PR team.
Saturday, March 22, 2025 Report this
RondaLarsonKramer
@NutTreeLoop, aka Mayor Debbie Sullivan, please know that I am grateful to you for making the right decision at that fateful June 4, 2024, city council meeting to get a second opinion, as Councilwoman Dahlhoff had requested. You saved the Davis Meeker oak then, just as much as the rest of us did.
Sunday, March 23, 2025 Report this
NutTreeLoop
Dear Ms. Larson,
I am not Mayor Sullivan. Nor do I know her personally or professionally. I moved away from the Olympia area almost 12 years ago, although I have many friends and associates in the area since I lived there for almost 30 years and I still follow the local politics. It's a great community. Nut Tree Loop is a street in the City of Olympia.
Perhaps you should express your gratefulness directly to Ms. Sullivan. Following your apology.
Sunday, March 23, 2025 Report this
S2345S23456
SAVE THIS TREE!!! The Davis Meeker Oak tree is a priceless magical gem. She lends a majestic novel character to her neighborhood. She holds secrets, as she is a long-time witness of local history. And from here in Washington, she winks at her cousins in California and the Midwest, keeping us connected. She makes us special.
Thursday, April 3, 2025 Report this