SB 437 .6 .G83 2000

DATSi DUE :

TN: 423299 I Pieces: 1 ii

I LL: ~m.;9509 DCU 06/18/l 2

.

.-... " ... ',

-

- TN: 512690 ( - Pieces: 1 -

ILL: 12 09836 FTU 10/07 /14

-

~ -

Demeo. Inc. 38-293 --

- I

Guide for Plant Appraisal

9th Edition

International Society of Arboriculture Champaign, Illinois

ISBN: 1--881956-25--3

opyright 2000 by IntemationaJ Society of Arbo1icu1ture

All rights rese1ved. Printed in the nited late of America. Except as permitted under the nitecl late opyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or tor d in a data-base or rettievaJ system, without the p1ior written pennis.sion of the lnternationaJ Society of Arbo1iculture.

4\ w. The ISA seaJ is a registered trademark.

EditoriaJ Coordinator: Peggy CwTid Composition by: Amy Reiss Cover Designer: Laura Adams-Wiggs Printed by: Crouse Printing Champaign, IL

lnternationaJ Society of Arbmiculture P.O. Box 3129 Champaign, IL 61826-3129 (217)~9411 Web ite: www.isa-arbor.com email: isa@isa-arbor.com

10987654 1000/CO - 5104

Cover The tnmk of a typical mature European beech (Fagus sylvalim) is being measured al 4.5 ft by Elli Allen to calculate the cross-sectional area of the trunk. As viewed by l11e camera, it appears l11e trwik has a mailer diameter farthC'r down; however, lh

AN'{A Amtucan 1'untry 6r larwbapc- AsMXUll 1oa

--------

AIA:A f\\'IO( lATflt l Al\IN.Art

Ct,..,.l'lAC 10k\OfAMtb.A

ISA

American tu'Sery and LanclsC'ap(' As.so.94 l l

ational Arborist Association P.O. Box 1094 Amherst,, ll ()30.'31-1094 (603) 673-3:311

Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9U1 EdWon AuUlored by Representative to Ule

Council of 1Tee & Landscape Apprai rs

Richard F. Gooding Gooding's Nursery and Landscaping

herrod ille, Ohio

James B. Ingram The F.A. Bartlett 1Tee Expert Co. Ostenrille, Massachusetts

James R. Urban Urban & Associates Annapolis, Maryland

Lewis B. Bloch Bloch Con uJting Group Potomac, Maryland

WtlJjam M. Sleigerwaldt Forest Land Services Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Richard W. I larris, CTLA Chair University of California Davis, California

Ellis N. Allen Consulting Arbon t Mashpee, Massachusetts

American Nursery and Land cape Association

American Society of onsulting Arborists

American Society of Landscape Architects

Associated Landscape ontractors of America

Association of Consulting Fore ters of America

International Society of Arboricultw-e

National Arborist Association

Edited, published, and copyrighted by the lnternalional Society of Arbo1icuJture

inlh Edition 2000

Contents

Acknowledgments ix Preface xi

Chapter 1 Plants Have Value Chapter 2 Plant Appraisal 9

The Plant Appraisal Proce 11 Plant Appraisal Procedures, Field Records, and Diagnostic Tools 13

Appraisal Procedures 13 Field Records 15 Diagno tic Tool 16

Chapter 3 Approaches to Value 19 Cost Approach 21 Income Approach 21 Market Approach 22

Chapter4 Factors in Plant Appraisal 25 Species 25 Condition 28

tructural Integrity 28 Plant I leaJU1 29 AnaJysis of Condition Factors 33

Size 35 Elliptical ro Sections 44 l leighl of ~leasuremcnt 45 Modilications to Tree Size Measurements 47 Tr('(' Cul OIT Below 4.5 ft (1.4 m) 49

Location 52 ilC' Rating 52

Cont tibulion Rating 52 Placement Rating 53 Oetcnnining the Location Factor 54

Chapter 5 Cost Approach to Plant Appraisal Regional Plant Appraisal Committee Replacement Cost Method

Steps to Determine Plant Value by the Replacement Cost Method

Adapting Replacement Co t Method to Unusual ituations

Replacement ost of Large 1ree Specimens Replacement Following Extensive 'Iree Lo Palms Replacement Co t Method for hrubs,

Hedges, and Vines Interior Plantings

1hmk Formula Method Cost of Repair Method Cost of Cure Method

Debris Removal and Landscape Structure Restoration

Plant Replacement Plant Restoration and Establishment

Swnmary of Plant Restoration and Establishment Me thods

Chapter 6 Income Approach to Plant Appraisal Chapter 7 Market Approach to Plant Appraisal Chapter 8 Appraised Values Should Be Reasonable

Insights on Market VaJue Estin1ates of Total Property VaJue The Contributory Value E timate Timber Value Plant VaJue on Easements and Rights-of-Way

Chapter 9 Casualty Claims and Losses Insurance Coverage Income-Tax Deductions

onbusiness and Personal Property Property I Jeld for Production of Income

U1er IRS onsiderations Definition of Casualty Damage to 1Tees and Other lx'mdscape Plants Except ions lo Darnagc Losses Proof of Loss Photographs

5i 58 00

61

66 66 67 f>8

69 69 70 76 76

78 79 81

87 t 8.9 ~ 93 99 99

100 100 102 102

103 103 104 106 106 107 107 108 108 108 109

R

List of Figures 1.1 Functional uses of plant materials 2-3 4 .1 Increase in trunk area and acljusted trunk area with increasjng diameter 38 4.2 Measuring tree with fairly straight, uptight trunk 45 4.3 Measming trunk of leaning tree or tree on a lope 46 4.4 Measuiing trunk of low-branching tree 47 4.5 Measuring trunk stems of mulLi-stem tree 48 List of Th.bles 2.1 Useful diagnostic equipment 16 4.1 Factors to consider in raLing plant specie and cultivars 26 4.2 Characteristics of woody plants and selected relative importance

of U1eir in1luence on landscape function, site adaptation, and plant heal th care 27

4.3 Guide to judging plant condWon 34-35 4.4 English units; trunk areas and aclju ted trunk areas based on diameter 39 4.5 English units; trunk areas and acljusted trnnk areas based on

circumference 40 4.6 Metric units; trunk areas and acljusted trunk areas based on dfameter 41 4.7 Metric uruts; trunk areas and acljusted trunk areas based on

circw11ference 42-43 4.8 Trunk diameters at 4.5 ft and near the ground and values required

for linear regression equation 50 4.9 Suggested functional and aesthetic contribution factors 53 10.l ompruison of appraisal report formats 1.1 Annual intere t rate compounded Worksheets and Samples Replacement Co t Method 'Ihmk Fom1ula Method

118-119 126

64-65 74-75

Acknowledgments

The Council of Tree and Land cape Apprai ers grate-fully acknowledge the thoughtful contributions of Richard Barrett, verland Park, Kansas; Molly Beck, Woodinville, Washington; Pat:Iick Bucl

x GuidRfor Pl.anJ Appm1

Preface

People who ar familiar with the valuation of plants recogniz U1at plants have value beyond U1eir aestl1etic contributions lo a land cap and that U1eir value can be asse ed. A planl appraiser musl deal wilh a broad peclrum of planl valuations from an individual Lree to

an entity as complex as a wooded resid ntial or recre-ation area, an industtial park, or an entire city. Planl valuations arc nol limiled to casualty situations but can include appraisals for tr e inventories, r al-e tale ttans-actions, plant condemnation actions, and insurance pUipo e.

In 1905, Dr. George E. Stone, al what is now th University of Massachusetts, Amherst, revised an earlier fonn ula devised by a University of Michigan professor for placing a monetary value on "shade and omamental ttees." Few persons could have envisioned then how much plant appraisal would change and how complex it would become dwing U1e rest of the 20th century. And, when Dr. Ephraim P. Felt, director of lhe Bai.11ett 'Irec Re arch Laborato1ie , and 0 1ville piccr, presi-dent of The F.A Brutlett 'Irce Expert Company, revised Dr. ton 's formuJa in 1938, plant appraisal became even more complex.

tone' formuJa emphasized tree size, location, and condition of lh tree. The Felt/Spicer f01mula expanded

tone' fom1ula to include pecies and re idential land values. A tree' initial value was based on a cross section of its trunk measwed 4.5 fl (1.5 m) above lhe ground. Thi value was acljusted by the location, condition, specie , and land value, each express d as a percent-age, to obtain an appraised value. Considerable judgment was nece ary, but few c1iteria were provided with which to evaluate each of lhe rating factors.

xi

Plant valuations ore not limited to casualty situations but con include appraisals for tree inventories, reol-estote tronsodions, plant condemnation odions, and insurance purposes.

xii Gui

Pnf11('('

A finther refinem nt of U1e Guide "Formula" acldtl'SS('CI the rapid increase in trunk area and, therefore, the value of tr e larger than 30 in. (75 cm) in diam lC'r. The Guide al lowed an apprai er to adju t for lr

xiv Guide for Pffml Appra1S!JI

professional plant appraiser. Rather, it is the proficiency with which the tools and procedure are used. indeed the judgment of the appraise1; based on careful analysis of all the factors, is the key to accurate plant appraisal. As such, the appraiser hould remember that this doc-ument is only a guide to that end.

CHAPTER 1

Plants Have Value

Plants are living things ngaged in the mo t profound creativity in the world. Because of their photosynthetic proc , plants a.re ntial to mo t oth r organisms. Their beauty, inte rac tion with other organism , and piritual contdbutions are important to humans, but

these att:Iibutcs are difficult Lo quantify economically. Whether they o cur na tmally or have b e n introduced, trees and lands ap plants perfom1 basic engineering, architectural, and e nvi.ro1UTiental functions (see Figw'e 1.1). Mo t hw11an intere t in plants become tangible and quantifiable when viewed in tem1S of thes func-tional benefits. Th practice of plant appraisal and tud-ies have provid d methods to value plants in monetary terms. Thus, plant appraisers with the help of this Guide can proc d in a credible and acceptable man-ner Lo determine reasonable appraised monetary value of plants.

Plant appraisals are u ed for various reasons: ettle-ment for dan1ag or death of plarits Uu'ough arbitration, insurance claim , or di.r ct payment; loss of property value for i.ncom tax purposes; real-estate appraisals; establishing valu of plants that may be damaged dur-ing construction, etc. Proactive reasons for appraisals may include use by land cape architects and d igners to educate cli nts and justify additional co ts for f ea-turing or saving trees; u e by municipal and p1ivate entities for an ongoing comprehensive inventory to establish and justify budget requests for maintenance, removal , and n w plantings; or to negotiate vaiiances to zonin g or building codes to help save trees and then establish valu for the purpo e of bonding trees that municipalitie and others require to be saved during constm ti on proj cts. The uses of plant appraisals can be as divers as plant species tllemselves.

l

2 Gu idI,

B. ENGINEERING

AIR CONDITIONI NG

ACOUSTIC AL CONTllOL

SOFTENING ARClllTt:CTI.TRE

COMPLEMENTING ON ENllANC ING AllClllTECTURE

ATTllACTIN(l Ill RDS on ANIMA~'I '"l"YING TOGt,'Tll Ell" VARIOUS ELEMENTS

c:RADUAL UNFOLDING OFA VIEW

L INE C ALLIGRAPHY

OAC' K(; f

Chaptrr I : l'ia111.~ 1/(11'ANCE

OB.'l'T'RUC"TION

\..'lNl TAL VARIATIONS

s 4 .I

' ,. ,/,

4 Guidr for Pla11t Apprai.!a/

One way the American public has hown that the\ value p lants is by purchasing them. "Gardening and

A U.S. Forest Service other outdoor-related activitie continue their trong dy sh wed h growth and remain America's number-one leisure

stu 0 1 01

activity," ays Bruce Butterfield, Research Director for real-estate appraisers the National Gardening A ocialion (AAN Todny estimated that trees 1996). In 1994 and 1995, consumers pent a total of contributed us much $25.9 billion on their lawns and gardens, which was an

increase of $3.5 billion, or 15.5 percent, over the pre\i-as a 27 percent ous year, according to Butte rfield. California's state

increase in dollars for wban fore try sector had sale of at least $1.115 billion two-thirds wooded in a 12-montll period in the early 1990s (Templeton and

Goldman 1996). Garden television shows continue to compared to open grow in popularity aero s the United States, fwther

land with no plants. strengthening public interest in plants. Studies have shown that landscape plants, particu-

larly trees, enhance property value and increase city assets. Peters' (1971) report in the Journal of Forest1y indicated tllat on one 7-ac (2.8-ha) tract of land, shade trees contributed 19 percent, or $57,000, to the total appraised value of $302,000. A U. . Forest Service study in Amherst, Massachu e tts, showed that real-estate appraisers estimated that trees contributed as much as a 27 percent increas in dollars for two-thirds wooded compared to open land with no plants (Payne 1973).

A more recent tudy on the contribution of land-scaping to the price of single-family houses conducted in Greenville, South Carolina, showed that a house that obtained an "excellent" rating for the landscape from a local landscape professional could expect a sales price 4 to 5 percent higher ( d pending on the size of the lot) than equivalent houses with a "good" landscape rating. Homes with landscapes rated "fair" or "poor" could expect a sales price 8 to 10 percent below equiv-alent homes with good landscape appeal (Ileruy 1994).

A survey by Arbor ational Mo11gage, Inc., revealed that "84 percent of the real-estate agents feel a house on a lot with tree would be as much as 20 percent more salable than a hou e on a lot without trees. In addition, 62 percent of Uie respondents said the exis-tenc(' of healthy shade tree s trongly influences a pot('ntial buyer's impr(' ion of a block or neigl1bor-hood; 60 percent thoug11t healthy hade trees have a big effect on a potential buyer's fas t inlpre ion of a property; and 56 percent felt healthy hade IJ'eeS are a

C/wpter 1 ~011/s llni'

4 ' '

6

. .. measurable studies are proving the dired value of

trees in everyday life.

Guide for Pla111 App111l$4/

ci ties can be as much as 10F wrumer than in ur-rounding nual areas due to the replacement of soil and vegetation with concrete, asphalt, and metal" (Akbari et al. 1992). McPhe1 on and Rowntree's moni-toring and computer imulations uggest that a ingle 25-ft (7.6-m) tree can reduce the heating and cooling costs of a typical residence by to 10 percent, or 10 to $25 per year (McPher on and Rowntree 1993). Even tho ugh the e numbers do not eem impre ive for average-sized re idences, commercial properties ertjoy large cost savings. Heisler (1986) estimates that wind-breaks can reduce a typical ho me's space-heating demand by 5 to 15 percenL Annual pace-heating and cooling savings from a ingle 25-ft deciduous tree opti-mally sited near a well-insulated building are estimated to range nationally from $5 to $50, up to 20 percent." Simp on (1998) evaluated the regional magnitude of an urban forest's heating and cooling effects in his Sacra-mento County case study and found "annual cooling savings of approximately 157 GWh ($18.5 million) per year, 12 percent of total air conditioning in the county."

Carbon equestration is another measurable benefit of trees, important because increased greenhouse gases in the atmo phere have been linked with global climate change. Studies in Sacramento County, Cali-fornia, showed that "in net, the urban forest removes approximately 3.3 tons p r ac (1.2 t/ha) each year, with an implied value of $3.3 million ($0.55 per tree). Carbon dioxide reduction by acramento's urban forest offsets the total an1ount emitted as a byproduct of human con-umption by 1.8 percent" (McPherson 1998). In the

Amed can For try Association's Shading Our Cities, amp on ta.tes, "A fast-growing fores t tree ab orbs up

to 48 pounds of carbon dioxide a year, that adds up to ten tons per acre of trees-enough to offset the car-bon dioxide produced by driving a car 21,000 miles" (1989, p. 10).

Oll1cr air-quality tudie show major amounts of air pollutant (parti culate) uptake by trees (Scott et al. 199 ) and include the miligating effect of their rainfall intcrcC'ption. It e ms that, as time goes on, more mea-lu Ludie are proving the direct value of trees in c>veryday life. U ing the principles outlined in this Guide, a profe ionaJ should be able to anive at fair and r

C1111pl

4

CHAPTER2

Plant Appraisal

Most land cap appraisers think of plant appraisal as it pertain to " torms," "damage," "de ln1ction," and "failure," and with good reason; in these situations, plant apprai ers ar mo t often conta led for their appraisal se1vice . nfortunately, the are the worst time lo try to tabli h an accurate timale of a plant' worth. The tr e may be severely damaged or totally d stroy d. It is difficult lo ass its form r pos-itive or negative qualitie and how it appeared prior lo the damaging event. If an entire site has b en dan1agcd or destroyed, the problem becomes even more difficulL

It is easier and more accurate to evaluate and appraise a lands ape and its supporting plants before damage occws. This is pecially critical for such w'ban for st prope11ies as arboreta, botanical gardens, public parks, and other site who e total value depends heav-ily or exclusively upon such natural featur s. An exist-ing plant inventory and appraisal can be important to have not only in the event of a natural disaster, but when human heavily damage or destroy plants and land cape through uch activitie as con truction. Knowing the value of such features in advance can be a powerful inc ntive lo protect and preserve them from such pr dictable harm. An inventory helps to establi h a basi for compensation that can be Wlitten into construction documents.

There are other equally valid reasons for perf om1ing apprai als on a routine basis. Beyond rnaintenanc records and photo of plants, more and more munici-palities and land ap managers are conducting inven-tories to quantify the contribution that plants make to the quality of ti~ for communities and large commer-cial ite and to help them provide for better manage-ment. One rompon nt of such inventories is to place a

9

s 4 '

,.

10 Guide/or Plonl AJ1J1m1sa/

value on each p lant and on the community of plants as a whole. The e value may then be used to establish and justify budget reque ts for maintenance, removals, and new plantings.

are of plants, and especially tree , in the landscape depends o n more than a comm ercial ite' or munici-

Approisols help pality's attention to tree . Mo t trees in wtan forests in the United State are found on privately owned land

managers budget (Cla rk e t al. 1997). The appraisal value of a residential adequate funds to landscape in the urban environment can also be a con-

proted the /ondSlope vincing argument for private owners to better manage their plant resource . Appraisals help managers budget

investment. adequate funds to protect the landscape investment. There are other reasons for perf01ming appraisals of

plants. Insurance companie may require appraisals on properties to establish coverage levels. Appraisals may be needed for tax purposes in the event of a lo . Liability issues may become s ignificant in the event of irtjury to persons or property caused by trne failw'C or las.5 of plants on a site. Tott cases involving a wrongful act, or a failure to act, may require appraisals as evidence in courts of law. Pre-existing landscape value can help the plant appraiser create a strong argument for reasonable assessments.

In the plant appraisal process, the value of individ-ual plants and the whole landscape should be reason-ably and closely dependent upon the value of the land they occupy. A major factor for the plant appraiser to con ider when making an appraisal is the possible need to ascertain ome estimate of a property's total value. Th.is proc may require assistance from qualified real-c tate profe ional . A numb r of research studies have shown that plants and other landscape features contribute s ub tantially to both asse ed value and elling pric of a prope1ty and have quantified the per-

centage of tile value added to property by attractive landscaping. Th potential for plant appraisers to off er appraisal civices for this pmpo is substantial.

Just as p ople may appraise the value of items such as jewelry, furs, antiques, and other valuable assets, it i wi e to have a cwTent landscape valuation done. The e appraisals hould be updated on a regular basis because plant factor (i.e., Size, Species, Condition, and Location) arc dynan'lic and will change, and plant value(s) can c ith r inc rease or decrease over time.

Although the proactive approach represents the ideal case, it is not always the realistic one. Sudden and

Clwpter 2: Plant Amnuislll

unexprcted disast r , both natmal and humanmadC', do occur. When they do, they require Lhe profe ional appraisal exp rtise of exp 1ienc d plant appraiser on an emergency basis. l lowever, when apprai als arr perfonned ahead of Lime through an inventory, p oplr will be ducated to tmclerstand that plant can have sub tantial valu and that il is be t e lablished b fore disaster st:Iik . The Guide for Plant Appmisal oullin s the factors to consider when appraisals ar done and the various appraisal methodologies and technique . It is designed to help the plant appraiser learn about accepted procedures, ethic , and appraisal trategie .

The appraisal proc can be defmed as the act, mannc1~ or technique of conducting U1e teps of an app1aisal meiliod. ln choo ing an app1ai al method, the plant appraiser houJd y tematically look at the appraisal situation and lh assigmnent. Every appraisal is differ-ent, and the appraiS('r hould select the most reasonable approache .

Thorough do umentation i c ritical during th e app1aisal pro e . Do not rely on memory. ll is ntial to keep a mnning log of ve1y appraisal case. Document all phone calls and personal conve1sations, and maintain a record o f all con-espondence. A sugge ted checklist might include one or more of the following points. Obt.ain pertinent information at first contact.

Record the date and time of fust contact. Why were you called? Where has the case come from? Was lh case referTed by another client? What is your pro peclive client thinking today, and what outcome doe he or she want to achieve?

ls the re a po ible conllict of interest? ame, addre , e-mail address, and phone number of calle1: If th caller is a representative of a company, get the full name of the firm and the caller's title.

Name, adcl1 , and phone number of any insurance companie involved.

Wul the appraisal be for an inventory/management plan, in urance, the IRS, or litigation?

'lry lo delennine the cause, type, and magnitude of the apptaisaJ.

The Plant Appraisal Process

II

4 12 .t

Guide for Pla111 Ap11roisa/

Discuss fees and establish if you will be paid on an hourly, a per diem, or a flat rate.

Who will pay tJ1e fee? If there is no award, what is the client's obligation?

Outline exacUy the type of assignment that is requested. Indicate whether an appraisal will be furnished and whether you are willing to serve as a witness in cowt.

Be prepared to e tablish your competence. Provide a good reswne and/or a list of cases with which you have b en involved.

Obtain written authorization to proceed. Establish a background on the case before the site is visi ted .

Speak with the owner of U1e appraised plants. Learn the reason for appraisal (value of the plants or landscape, weather, vandalism, vehicle, insect, disease, fire, poUution, environmental change, etc.).

Learn the history of the ituation. Are "before" and "after" photos available (if you are doing a dan1age appraisal)?

Identify other appraisers, consulting experts, and/or expert witne es who will be involved.

Are the prop rty boundaries established by an accw'ate and recent wvey?

Inspect the site. Obtain the owner's penni ion and visit the site as oon as po ible before conditions Call change.

ote tl1e date and location of the appraisal. Be thorough so U1at a return trip will not be necessary.

Record the time and date of the inspection. Allow ufficient time for thorough inspection. Prepar a ketch howing the location of plants and their relation to other elements of property. Be sure U1e sketch is drawn proportionately and the north arrow is shown. Make note about the appraised plants, th ir vaticty, their condition, and the signifi-cance of the location directly on U1e ketch. Indicate views of any suppo11ing photographs. (Be careful of using "scale" language if you are notasrnveyor.)

~------c{

C7wptcr .!: Plont Ap111u isol

Check the il for any wuque ituation and~ a-ture , such as utilitie , soil conditions, and trnflic or wning con ms.

Delennine wheth r th re ar any unusual factors involving acce to th il and the appraised plants' location.

Alway tak photographs with an adequate camera. Instant cam ras work well if olor film is used; their advantage is that you wi11 lrnow inun diately if you hav a suitable pholo. However, the film has a low xposurC' spe d, and it can b exp nsive, pruticularly if enlargem nts ar n c ary.

lnstamatic cameras are only mruginaUy effective. Photographic quality is ofL n too poor for enlarge-ment. Frequ nUy, conditions for U1 ir use ar poor. You may want Lo take photographs at the wrong time of day, th weaU1er may be unsatisfactory, and b cau tr s are oflen involved, you may encount r r due d lighting as a re ult of hade.

The usuall y pref en- d cameras are 35 mm. It is helpful Lo have a lens that CM focus on mall details, plus a wide-angle lens. Use a film with enough p d o that good pictures can be taken even when light is poor.

Digital cam ras off er a supe1ior meMs of record-keeping bccaus pictwes CM be reviewed on i te and s 1 ct d Lo depict accwate details of the case. The pictwes can then be downloaded in your computer y Lem and copied in yotu- r port.

Yid olap cam ras are becoming more popular in courts. Judges and juries respond well to expe1t testimony if th video is cleru and professionally sholon ite.

Appraisal Procedures The m U1ods recomm nded for detennining the mone-tary value of plants have been prepared by the Council of 'Irce and Land cape Appraisers (CTLA). The appraisal process is a sy Lematic procedure that encompasses analysis, data ollcction, and the application ofmethod(s) to de1ivc reasonabl onclusions and recommendations. A competent plant appraiser must have a broad back-ground in plMt trn tw , maintenance, and health; be

13

Plant Appraisal Procedures, Field Records, and Diagnostic Tools

s 4 .I .1

14 Guide for Plant Appmisa/

able to use the approp1iate diagnostic tools and metll

Clw11trr .!: l>t.anl Appmisol

A frequently overlooked asp ct of plant cliagnosi involve quC' tioning the propC'rty ownC'r about lhC' plant's history. eighbors and local officials also ran be a sourr of valuable information. A pr

4 ' '

16 Guide for P!a111 Appm ill/

Diagnostic Tools In diagno ing the condition of a plant, careful exami-nation of the leave , t\vigs, branche , trunk, root collar, and roots can be he I pf ul. Tools that may be used in diagnosing plant conditions a.r hovm in Table 2.1. In many cases, an appra iser need only a hand Jen . pocket lrnif e, soil prob , trowel, hovel, and pruner. In the selection and use of tools and equipment, perhaps the most important cons idera tion i the appraiser's familiarity with the item and it.s u e. Selection should be based on the needs of the particular ituation.

TABLE 2.1. Useful diagnostic equipment.

For recording Clipboard Compass Distance meter Engineer 's pocket scale Hard hat Laptop fie ld computer Photography equipment

Instant/instamatic camera 35-m.m camera Digital camera Video camera

Pencils wiU1out erasers Field rcpo1t forms Tape r corder For measuring plant size Diam ter tap

C/11111/

4 .( .< 2

CHAPTERS

Approaches to Value

Traditionally, plants and landscapes are con idered part of real estate. Real estate is defined as the physical land and appmtenan s affixed to the land--0r land and all lhe featm s that are a natmal part of the land, as well as the f eatur that people attach to it, u h as buildings, tre , shrubs and yard improvements. Real property is much like real estate, but real property includes all inter Ls, b nefilS, and rights inherent in the ownership of physical real tate. A right or inter-est in ownership i also referr d to as an estate. In most ca e , plant apprru e rs consult on situations involving a paiticular parcel of real estate and the con-tributory value of plants and other yard improvements.

An apprai al is an unbias d stimate of the nature, quality, value, or utility of an interest or an aspect of real estate. Simply, Lhe pwpose of an appraisal is lhe stated scope of an appraisal assignment, that is, to esti-mate a defined valu of any real property intere t. The purpo of the appraisal is defined by the client's needs or questions. U th client's questions are understood, the purpose of an assignment can also be cleaily stated. When an timat of value is required in an appraisal, the type of valu ought must be defined at the outset. Appraisers can be asked by a pro pective client to esti-mate many types of value. Valuation, for example, can include the pro of e timating market value, insur-able val ue, inv Lment value, going-concern value, busines.5 valu , assessed value, or any other type of value in an identified intere l as of a specified date.

Although many types of value exist, the most common valuation assignments for U1e plant appraiser involve estimating Lhe contributory value of p lants and land-scapes from an ass t standpoint or plants damaged by some occurrenc . Fire, accident, construction ir\jury,

19

The purpose of the appraisal is defined by the client's needs or questions.

4 ,( ,( 2

20 Guide for Pla111 AJIP'IUS!ll

negligence, tre pass, eminent domain, and casualt~ loss are just ome of the r asons that plant appraiser., are caJled in for con ultation after damage ha occwTed. Estimates of vaJue hould closely follov. tra-ditional appraisal practice. Plant are part of the client's real estate. A plant appraiser may follow mon traditional appraisaJ principles and accepted appraisal practices when detennining plant vaJues.

In appraisal theory, the vaJuation proces.5 is used to develop a well-suppo1ted timate of a defined value. The vaJuation proce begins when an appraiser per-fonns a needs asse ment for the appraisal and encb with a conclusion to the client ( ee The Plant Appraisal Process, Chapter 2). Each reaJ property is unique, and many type of value can be estimated for a single property. The most common appraisaJ assignment is performed to estimate market vaJue; the valuation process contains all U1e steps appropriate to this type of assignment. The model also provides the fran1e-work for estimating any other defined vaJue. Real-estate apprai ers estimate property vaJue by applying specific appraisal procedures that reflect three distinct methods for anaJyzing data The three accepted methods are the Cost, the Income, and the Market Approaches to value. One or more approaches are used in deter-mining all value e tirnates. The approaches utilized depend on th type of property, use and purpose of the appraisal, and the quality and quantity of information available for anaJysis.

In some cases, a decision must be made behveen plant vaJuation and timber income potential. The income approach may be used to estimate the vaJue of trees as fore t products. An example could be the los.s of a few tree aJong a property line of a 5-ac (12-ha) or larger rural property. Regardless of Jand use, the placement rating of tree remote from a home site may be so low as to caus for st product values to exceed landscape value. In this case, the appraiser must first detemline the volum and quality of merchantable wood in the lo . Then the value of wood products in the market-place must be e timated. The net value, or stumpage, is e timated by ubtracting a reasonable co t of pro-duction from wood-fiber selling value. An appraiser houlcl have adequate training in forest vaJuation prac-

Uces b fore placing vaJue on trees for stumpage.

Chapter .J: AwmMlus to Valur

In real-estate appraisal, the Cost Approach is based on the premi that the value of a property can be derived by adding U1e e timated land value to thr ctu-rent co t of con tructing a reproduction or replace-ment for th improvement . Then th amount of depreciation- that is, all deterioration and ob ole -cence in the improvem nts-is ubtracted. Application of the co t approach to plant appraisals is quite com-mon and has b en encouraged by past ditions of the Guide. It is the assumption in this approach that the cost to repair or replac plants and landscape items (les.s depreciation) for Condition and po ibly Loca-tion and Specie can be added to the land value in order to arrive at th total prope1ty value. D preciation in plants may include overplanting ( uperadequacy).

This is perhaps the mo t widely used approach and has direct applicability to many plant appraisal assign-ments. When damage to landscapes oc ur, and the materials can b easily repaired or replaced, co t-approach methods are well suited for an estin1ate of value. In mo t cases, landscape professional are the most qualified individuals to provide accurate repair or replacement co ls ror trees, shrubs, sptinkling sys-tems, retaining walls, and the like. Because co t data are readily available, the approach is usually reasonable and appropriate for mo l situations.

The Cost Approach provides an indication of value by adding the land value to the depreciated value of improvements. Th plant appraiser's function is to pro-vide the value of the "improvements," or the compli-mentary value of the plant , trees, and landscape features to the value equation. In most cases, cost inf om1ation i dir ctly available and provides one indi-cation of value. The type of "cost" information com-monly applied for plant and landscape appraisal may include Re pla ceme n t Cos t , Trunk Formula Method, Cost of Repair, and Cost of Cure.

The Income Approach is used to appraise income-producing prop rty. This approach may have limited use and applications for the plant appraiser, yet it is in1portant to mention and understand its theory and potential in som situations. The Income Approach measure th pre ent value of the future benefits of

Cost Approach

Income Approach

21

4 ,( ,( 2

22

Market Approach

Guide fur Fta,.1 ~pprallUt

property ownership. A property's income stream and resaJe value are capitalized into a present value. Th" basis for the Income Approach is one fonnula

Annual Income .;- Rate of Return = Value

An inve tor in an apartment building, for example. anticipates an acceptable return on the inve tment (income stream), as well as a re turn of the investment ( resale value). The specific data that an appraiser investigates for this approach might include the property's gross income, expected operating expenses, the dura-tion of the investment, and the anticipated resale value of the building. After income and expenses are esti-mated, the net income is converted into present value through capitalization or discounting. The rates used for discounting are derived from acceptable rates of return for similar properties. An accountant or knowl-edgeable real-est.ate appraiser would be helpful in col-lecting this information.

As an example, assume that an investment property has a net annual income of $10,000 after all expenses; that is, an annual rent or the like, and the life of the annual income appears to be for an extended period (in perpetuity). Assuming a 10 percent rate of return, the value of our income property is as follows:

Annual Income .;- Rate of Return = Value or

$10,000 .;- .10 = $100,000 The plant appraiser may not often be involved with

income-producing property, but there are situations wh r e the income approach may be applicable. Nurse ries, Christmas tree farms, orchards, and similar business valuations are examples. Chapter 6 provides examples and de tails on how the income approach may be used by the plant appraiser in special situa-tion . De pite its limited use, the p lant appraiser hould be aware of the fundamentals of the Income

Approa ch and know when its use is appropriate.

The third method used in appraisal practice i the Market Approach. This technique relies on property sales; U1at is, comparing plices of comparable proper-tie in order to e timate another property's value. It is also commonly referred to as the Sales Comparison

Clwpter 3: Approoch

I 4'. .f .( 2

CHAPTER4

Factors in Plant Appraisal

Fow ptimary factors help determine the value of land-scape plants: Species, Condition, Size, and Loca-tion. These factors ar essential con id rations when appraising the value of a plant using Replacement, Tnmk Formula, Co t of Repair, Co t of Cure, and other appraisal method . Size i determined by mea-surement. The o ther three factot are subjective, and each is expre ed as a percentage determined by the plant appraiser r lative to what would b considered a "high-quality" pe in1en.

An almost unlimited mm1ber of plant species and culti-vars grow in landscapes, fields, and woodlands where people live, work, and play. Even within a species, individuals and cultivars have wide ranges of climatic adaptability, growth charactetistics, soil adaptability, and tolerances (Tabl 4.1 and Table 4.2).

The Species rating often vari es geographically, depending on th pecie ' relationship with its envi-ronment. A charactetistic of asp cie may be an asset in part of a region and a liability in another pai.t of the same region. Plants that grow poorly in one area due lo alkaline soil may grow well nearby in a more acid soil. A 100 perc nt Species rating could be given lo an indige-nous, native plant tolerant o f a site's environment.

Lists of tree species with their rating.5 were included in 01e Guide p1ior to its third edition (1975). The lists, how-ever, were not considered detailed enough to represent the value of pcC'ie in different ecological ai.eas, even wiOlin the san1e region. Experiment stations in a number of states and provinces have lists of recommended trees and hrubs that can help in rating a particular species or cultivai.. international Society of Arboriculture (ISA)

2.5

Species

A 100 percent Species rating could be given to an indigenous, native plant tolerant of a site's environment.

4 ,( ,I 2

26 Guidi' for Pla111 Appra

TABLE 4.1. Factors to consider in rating plant specie and cultivars.

Climate adaptability S oil adaptability 1. Cold hardiness 1. Structure and texture 2. Frost tolerance 2. Drainage 3. Drought tolerance 3. Moisture deficiencies or

exce es 4. Storms, resistance to ice, snow, wind 4. Aciclity and alkalinity

5. utritional deficiencies or excesses

Growth characteristics Resistance or tolerance l . Diseases 1. Tolerance of difficult sites

2. Vigor 2. Insects 3. Structural strength 3. Air pollution 4. Life expectancy 5. Pruning requirements

( ee regional rating lists if available.)

chapters, or other regional organizations, also have compiled lists of recommended trees or have tree-rating lists tha t ar available to their members. These ratings should be based on Species characteristics, without regard to plant Condition or Location factors.

There may be s itua tions in which one or more species may be the only species that will swvive or do well in a particular environment. Examples include soils with extreme pH; oils that are extremely wet, poorly drained, or saline; and areas in which strong winds or dense shade is prevalent. An appraiser would be jus tifi ed in these ins tances in giving a higher Species rating than would be considered under the more normal conditions on which the species was rated for the region. For example, Morus alba, a fruit-le mulben y, rat d 20--00 in Ohio (Sydnor et al. 1997), could be ra ted more than 60 in another area if the pccie wer only one of a few that could grow in a

particularly difficult micro ite. Although the co ts of transplantable- ized trees sel-

dom vary as much as U1eir Species rating.s, most of the peci s with lower rating.s often have characteristics

wh n they are young that are of less value, or even nega-tive value, when they are older. Some characteristics of uch pcci arc rapid growth rate, higher transplanting

Owpter4: Factors in Plant Appr(lisal

survival, cold hardines , and di ase re i lance. AJl these consideration ar helpful when e mploying o t of Repair, Cost of Cure, and lhe dilierent t appraisal methods.

TABLE 4.2. hara teris tic.s of woody plants and ugg led r !a live importance of their inllu nee on lands ap function, ite adaptation, and plant care (Hanis et al. 1999).

Function

27

Plant characteristics

Architectural and engineeting

limate and hwnan comfo1t

Adaptation lo site

Plant care

Growth habits for trees, shrubs, vines

Mature heigh l and pread *** *** ** ***

Form ** ** * Growth rate * * ** Branching ** * * ** Wood t.rengti1 ** * * Rooting ** *** ** ***

Plant features Leaves ** *** ** *** Thoms ** * ** Flowers * * Fruit ** Bark *

Environmental tolerances Temperalur **** ** Drought ** ** Wtnd ** ** Light * ** Soil **** *** ** Air ** * Pe ts *** *** Fire **** ** **

Range: = major innuence; no = little or no influence

~ ~ ~ e

~ ;;;;)

I

I 4'.: .6 ,( 21

28

Condition

Guide for Pfn11t Appru

Trees posing ummsonabt_e risks lwuld not be appmisai for amenity monetmy value: Renwval hould be rrrom-mended. A separate hazard tree evaluation or tree structure evaluation rnay be required for Ire~ in poor condition. Hazard trees may lzat1efirc1rood value, or a Lree 1nay be important to wildlife a11d could be kept if the tree does not stand near a high use target, such as a sidewalk, driveway, or home. (Matheny and Clark 1994).

The many (odors involved in assessing

the Condition of a plant require the skill

of a qualified plant

The Condition of a plant is determined by evaluat ing its present structural integrity and state of health and, if nece sary, its tructure and health prior to being destroyed or damaged. The many factors involved in assessing the Condition of a plant require the kill of a qualified p lant appraiser. Interview with the prop-erty owner to ascertain the plant's history and symp-toms seen in other seasons may be important. Prior photographs and tree maintenance history should be invesligated by the plant appraiser.

Even though a plant may appear to be healthy and have a strong structure, the species may be known to be short-lived, have brittle branches and/or branch attachments, be subject to erious insect or disease problems that persist in the area, not be hardy to the lowest temperature on record, or be susceptible to another species-related malady. The Condition rating should not be adju ted to reflect such possibilities. These charactelistics are Species rating concerns. A plant's existing condition is the mo treasonable gauge for determining the Condition rating.

appraiser.

Structural Integrity A tr e that appears lo be healthy may have structural problem that could affect its Condition rating. A high degr of structwaJ integrity is e enliaJ for a large tree located where its failur could cause personal iajury or prop rty damage. Thorough exanlination of a tree is a primary roncem for an appraiser. It may be advisable to climb the tI e and/or peiform a root collar evaluation through excavation, if necessary, for a closer diagno tic in pection.

When checking the structural integiity of a large trrc, thC' appraiser hould first examine it for root con-ditions and stability; trunk oundness, decay, or cavities; thrn branch conditions, oundness, and attachment.

Cllapter4: Factors i n Plo nt A111nni,~ol

Potential hazards in tr e may be indicated by rai 'N I soil on one id of the trunk, broken or dead roots, a leaning tnmk, onks of wood, decaying fungi, codomi-nant stem , included bark, splil bran ch atlachmr nts, several branche ari ing clo togelher on thr trnnk ( excepl for central leader tr s such as co nil! rs), and dead limb (Matheny and lark 1994).

If a tree problem cannot be corrected, or U1e lrer is not worth saving, its r moval should b rccomrn ndrd. A tree lo be re moved may have a negaliv value if its timber or fir wood value is less than the removal and cleanup co ts.

There may be occasions when a tree's problems can be corrected, and the tree could po e le of a risk if the Condition( ) can be con'ectcd. In Lhis situation, rate the tree as if U1 Condition had been co1Tected; then ubtracl the e timated co t of con-ective work from its

final value to oblain the apprais d value of the tree (see Co t of Repair M thod, Chapter 5). A disclain1er hould accompany the value, pecifying thal correc-

tive measures hall be taken by the c lienl to improve the tree's condition.

Although il may nol be considered hazardous al pre-sent, a Lre could have a poor genetic s truclure thal would be vulnerabl Lo dan1age in a sev re s torm. Such a tree would be given a lower Condition rating than a tree wiUl a s tronger s tru cture. If present, any of these Conditions may be only of minor concern. The appraiser must consider st:ruclurc in relation to a potential LargeL Poor structure of a tree in a woodland site without a trail sy tem would not be as serious as in a high-traffic area.

Plant Health In analyzing plant healili, an appraiser must be familiar with the characteristics of a common plant of the pecies or cultivar being apprai ed, its mature size, leaf and bud size and color, hoot growth, and tree Lructure. The apprai e r hould ob erve these aspects of the who! plant and note plant healUl and obvious defects. The gen ral healili and vigor of a plant can be evaluated by the annual s hoot growth from preceding years. Progre ively le growth for each of Lhe past several years and weak foliage can indicate stress or a dete1io-rating condition, C' pccially in trees.

omc symptoms of a planl in poor condition are leaf di coloration, abnorma l leaf s ize, s hortened

--4 .I f

2

30

Proving chemicol trespass is ohen difficuh because

evidence is seldom dear.

Guide for Plant A11/l111iSal

intemodes, decay, clieback, insect frass, disfigured stem or roots, broken roots, and fungal conks. A S)-1llp-tom may have one cause or a combination of causes. Be familiar with the signs of the more common causal agents in the region and know their anticipated eff ect.s on the growth or life exp ctancy of the plant. The seri-ousness of a symptom and its ultimate effect on a plant's health can only be d termined and described when the problem is identified. Identifying and describing the cause of a symptom is important in rating a plant's Condition and strengthening the validity of the plant's appraised value.

A plant's well-being can be e1iously affected by dis-eases caused by biotic agents, noninfectious disorders caused by abiotic agents, and by clirect irtjwy. Diseases and noninfectious disorders may result from contin-ued irritation or association with a causal agent and may involve abnormal plant responses and observable symptoms. Irtjuries, on the other hand, may occur dur-ing a sho1t time span and may be accidental, intentional, or caused by maintenance prac tices.

Damages from chemicaJs, s uch as herbicides, pesti-cid s, air pollutants, or fertilizers, could be termed an i.ajury or a noninfectious disorde1; depending upon how quickly the damage becomes apparent. Plant response depends on the chemical, the amount that was appli d, the time it was applied, the weather, the sensi-tivity of the plant, and the health of the plant at the time.

hemical tr spass may occur if a chemical (such as home heating fue~ p ticide, fertilizer, or soil amend-ment) is misapplied, either accidentally or intentionally. Proving chemical trespass is often difficult because evi-dence is e ldom clear. If, for example, a prope11y was treat d wiU1 a herbicide, rains or inigation could wash the mate1ial onto an acljacent property, causing i.ajmy to plants. However, considerable time may have passed ince the herbicide may have been applied, raising the

que lion of whether U1e herbicide or omething else was r ponsible. Also, the herbicide may not be the only factor affecting the planL Finding the re ponsible agent may require careful research and testing. The appraiser should detennine the cause of the ir\jwy, its extent, the Condition of U1e affi cted plant( ) before the damag , and its lo in value. Determining respon-sibil ity u uaily is not the function of the plant apprais-er unJe it is prut of the assignment.

C71apt"7' 4: Factors in Plant Appraisal

Di ease-causing biotic agents may include fungi, viruse , bacteria, ins ts, phytoplasma-Lik o rgani ms, nematodes, and even se d plants. Ins ts r an increase the possibility of diseas when their ext nded fe cling results in defoliation or tern girdling. Mis tJcto are perennial evergreen parasite that grow on trun ks and branches of trees and lu-ub . Leafy misUet ran kill branches but mainly weaken plants; dwarf mi t i t on conifers are more deadly.

Abiotic agents of noninfectious clisord rs include unusual or prolonged adverse clima tic ondilion , poor soil, and stresse plac d on plants, sometime by human actions. Air temperature in the "concrete canyon" of c ities can b too hot and dry for many plants in the swruner. Rainfall can be too spru , caus-ing drought; too much water could ca u e a turated soil. Iligh soil alkalinity can result in chlorosi ; oil acictity can increase mineral toxicitie . Insufficient soil volume can inhibit plant growth. Competition with other plants can lead to reduc d growth. Girdling ( trangu-lating) roots can seriously re tri t growth and stability and can lead to plant failwe.

When the root area is covered by sid walks, drive-ways, buildings, o r s treets, the health and longevity of trees in the same or nearby locations can b substan-tially reduced. When natural or landfill gas s leak into lhe soil or air (for example, chlorine a t swimming pools), plants frequently decline or fail When plants are expo ed to the drift of de-icing salt, or to the accu-mulation of it in the soil, plants closest to the source usually show the most evere symptoms of decline and may fail long after the salts are gone from the soil.

Plants affected by onstruction projects or in1proper planting procedures may dccLine over evcral years, even ten yeru'S or longer~ become WlSighUy; and finally die. Soil compaction usually results in reduced vigor and could be fatal. Poor water percola tion through tight soil or sub oils re ults in plallt decLine and/or sur-face rooting alld ultimate failure. Reduc d availability of nutrients may re ul t in off-color, s maller leaves and/or hortened twig growth. Industrial activities that pollute the air or water can stress plants over large areas, as can the mi us of pesticides or herbicides. Finally, uch stresses initiated by abiotic agents often predi po e the plants to attack by secondary biotic agents.

:31

Plants affected by construdion pro;ects or improper planfing procedures may decline over several years, . ..

~ ..

4 '

,.

3".2

The extent of iniury to aboveground portions

of a plant is not os difficult to assess and

quantify os those that ()(OJ( below the {TOUfK1.

Guide for Plant Appro

If air or water pollution is uspected, contact \11th extension ervices, weather bureau , and prop('f1! owners, as well as local, state, and federal authoritih involved with problems of pollution, may be necessal} in order to develop a background on the circumstance:; that could be contributing to pollution problems.

The effects of biotic and abiotic agents are often on the interior of a plant and not readily een, but they must be understood in order to judge the Condition of a plant and to support the appraisal reports. Techniques have been developed and the inte1nal anato-my of di eased plants has b en described to help an appraiser interpret patterns of internal decay and other infectious problems. Infrared photography of foliage may be used to detect or verify that plants are suffer-ing from abnormal stress. Understanding a specie' annua l shoot growth can help to determine vigor. Trunk core samples may be taken to detemline the via-bility of a lre through growtl1 ring analysis.

Iajuries can occw to the roots, trunk, or crown of a plant and can be caused by construction, vehicular accidents, vandalism, chemicals, fire, lightning, main-tenance quipment uch as lawn mowers and string l:lirnmers, and fumes. Stonns can break branches and iajure the crown; low temperatures can kill suscepti-ble plant parts; and plants can be injured to some degree by pruning, cabling, bracing, irtjection or in1plan-tation of chemicals, transplanting, and cavity work.

The extent of iajwy to abovegroWld po1tions of a plant is not as difficult to asse and quantify as those tllat occw below the ground. The reduction in C.Ondition rating due to lo of branches or damage to trunk bark depends on the extent of branch loss or bark daniage, as weU as on the health and species of a plant, as some species arc mo re tolerant to injury than others. Vertical bark iajurie on a tree trunk are not as serious as ho1izontal irtjuries of equal area If a vigorous, healtlly tree wer to lose le than 20 p ercent of its bark arnund its trunk circumference, the main effect would be visual. Th negative effect of an olde1~ mature tree lo ing 20 p rcent of its bark is much more severe than if the ame iajury had occu1T d to a younger tree. Oldrr tree often have more difficulty creating callus to cover the WOWld.

The extent of crown irtjwy caused by lost, broken, or oth rwise iajured branches can be reasonably estimated

C'lwptcr4: Fartors i n Pl.ant Am1misal

and then compared lo the fu ll extent of the crown before the casualty. If, how ver, more Lhan 50 prcent of the tree' canopy ( d pending on the species' piuning tolerance) were lo t, in mo t cas the appraisal lo would probably be 100 percent. Ilow ver, SC'veral points hould b considered. The fus l is the ability of the plant to develop new branche . Mo t con.if ers, for example, will not prout from old wood. AnoU1er point is thal declining tre , or tr e with a trunk dfamelcr greater than 30 in. (75 cm), often fail lo devlop new crowns or develop them very slowly. Also, U1e cost and exlent of Lhe maintenance nece ary lo co1wct the damage, ext nd the life of the Lr e, and re tore its aesthetic and fw1ctional value may b excessive when compared to the tree' value.

The aclual decrease in valu of a damaged plant may be ne ded for insw1lnce or litigation purposes. In these situations, the appraiser may appraise the value of the plant as it existed be fore the casualty, then determine either Lhe value of the plant after U1e iajmy or the extent of the i.ajury expressed as a percentage of the total value. ln the first case, the loss of value of an iajured plant is obtained by subtracting the value after the dan1age from the value of the plant before the damage. In Lhc second case, multiply Lhe vaJue before the plant's injury by the percentage of lhe plant's ir\jury.

Analysis of Condition Factors The Condition rating of a plant is determined by the sum of the rating scores for each of the following five factors in Table 4.3. A eparate hazard tree evaluation may be required for Lr es with poor structure or that are in poor condition (Matheny and Clark 1994).

( ' Guidef

C7wptcr4: Factors in /'I.ant ApJ~mi,S/

Factor 4: Small Branches and 1\vig Vigor of curr nl shoots (compar pr vious growth) Well distributed through canopy Appearance of buds (color, hape, ize for U1e species) Presence of insects or diseas Presence of weak or dead twigs

Factor 5: Foliage and/or Buds ize of foliage/buds

Coloration of foliage Nutlient statu Herbicide, chemical, pollution ir\jw-y Wilted or dead leaves Dry buds Presence of insects or disease

Tolal subtotal points asse d for the five Factors

Divide subtotal points by 32 (total points po ible) and multiply by 100 to obtain the Condition rating

I lealU1 Subtotal (I~)

lleaJLll ubtolal ( I~)

(8-3'2)

(25-100)

As explained in U1e lcxl, boU1 structure and health items are to be rated for Lllc roots, U1e trunk, and Lll

36 Guide for Pla111 Approi.sa/

area of the trunk rather than its diameter. Canopy size can aid the plant appraiser when detemtining numbers of replacement plants when employing the Replace-ment Method or Cost of Cure Method.

The height a t which the trunk diameter of a tree is measured depends upon its size. The Am.erican tandard for Nursery tock, ANSI 7.60.l (1996) states that measure-me nts should be taken 6 in. (15 c m) above the ground for trunk diameters up to and in luding 4 in. (10 cm). Larger trees (assumed, but not stated, to be of transplantable size) are to be measured at 12 in. (30 cm). Trees nomially considered too laige to transplant are to be measured 4.5 ft ( l.4 m) above the ground. Tree , like conifers, which have branc hes below 4.5 ft should be measured at a height that most effectively repre ents the size of tree. The height at which trnnk diam ters are given in this pub-lication will be 6 in. (15 cm), 12 in. (30 cm), or4.5 ft (1.4 m) for the diameters or conditions given above.

To detennine the cross- ectional area of a tree trunk, the trunk perimeter is considered to be a circle. The area is calculated by measuring the perimeter (hereafter called circumference) of the trunk at 4.5 ft (1.4 m) above the ground. The circumference of a tree trunk is difficult for mo t people to visualize, so tree size is usually expre sed by it.s trunk diameter, converted from circumfere nce, and is the dimension most com-monly used by a.rborists and foresters. Arbo1ists often use "diam ter tapes," which have standard English or metric units on one ide, and tho e units divided by 3.14 (n) on the o ther to read diame ters directly.

The area of a circle can be calc ulated by using either its radius (1), diameter (d), or circumference (c):

,. = d + 2 = c + 27t Area = m~ = 3. 141~

= 7U[2 + 22= 3. 14d2 + 4 = 0. 785c(l = 7te2 + (2n)2 = 3.14c2 + 4(3.14)2 = 0.080c2

In previous editions of the Guide, the value of the llws based on llUnk areas with diameters les.5 than 10 in. (25 c m) was often le than the cost of replacement.

onversely, for trees greater than 30 in. (75 cm), tree val-ues bas d on trunk area bccam unrealistically high.

To correct the e proble ms, use the Unit 'free Cost for the Trunk Formula Me thod. 111e Unit 'free Cost is the cost per unit area on the lrugest commonly available

Owptrr4: Factors in Plant A71pmisal

tree considered transplantable for th region ( hapter 5). In addition, for tre larger than 30 in. (75 cm) in tnmk diameter, 'Ihmk Areas (TA) are converted lo Adjusted Trunk Areas (ATA) lo account for a ratc-of-tree-,alue increase of a large tree being 1 U1an il rate of increase in trunk area In detennining lhe Basic Tree Cost of a t:re , Ll'le Adjusted Trunk Area should be used in place of Ll'le 'lhmk Area.

The Adjusted 'Ihmk Area for large tr is based on the premise that a large, matm tr would not increase in value as rapidly as its trunk area would increase. It is unlikely that a 42-in. (107-cm) tr e would be consid-ered to be worth $3,400 more than a 40-in. (100-cm) tree due to siz alon . Like many aspecls of real-eslate valuation, trees reach an econoniic and aeslhetic rnatu-rity. Annual increases in size and age will not neces-sarily correspond lo an increase in cont1"ibuto1y property value. An e.rception lo the use of the ATA adjustment would be a historic tree.

The Adjusted Trunk Area for trees larger than 30 in. (75 cm) was determined empirically by the ouncil of 'free and Landscape Appraisers on lhe basis of tJ1e perceived increase in tree size, expected longevity, anticipated rnaint nance, and structural afety. The Adjusted Trunk Areas are expressed numcricaUy (Tables 4.4-4. 7) and arc represented by a grap h (Figwe 4.1). Based on the Adjusted Trunk Areas de1ived Crom quadrnlic formulas, values are calculated or manuaUy interpolated for diameters or circumfer-ences not listed in Table 4.4-4. 7.

:J7

4 .(

' 2

38

< w a: <

~ z

~ a: ....

c w .... . en ~ ::> 8 -, ~

c x ct "c:: c = z < < w a: < ~ z ~ a: ....

25

150

20

125

15 100

.

0 0

x

75 "E ~

10

50

5

25

0 0 10

25 20 50

30 75

I r;

40 100

I I

I

/ I

I I

I ATA .. I

I

50 125

60 150

Guide for Plant ~PPlllisal

/ /

/ /

/ /

/

70 80in 175 200 cm

FIGURE 4.1. Curve TA depicts the increase in 1htnk Area witJ1 increasing diameter. Cwve ATA represents tl1e rate of Adjusted 'Ihtnk Area increase at tl1e trunk diameters above 30 in. (75 cm).

Measwx>ments taken al 4.5 ll ( 1.4 m) above tl1e ground. **Adjusted Trunk Area (ATA) values considered to be reasonable for trees witl1 tnmk cliam

Chapter4: Factors in Plant Appmisal

TABLE 4.4. English units. Trunk Areas (TA)* and Adjusted Trunk Areas (ATA)** based on trunk ctiameter (d) at 4.5 fl (1.4 m).

d TA d TA ATA d TA ATA in in2 in in2 in2 in in2 in2

31 754 739 61 2921 1894 2 3 32 804 788 62 3018 1922 3 7 33 855 835 63 311 G 1949 4 13 31 907 882 64 3215 1976 5 20 35 962 928 65 3317 2002 6 28 3G 10 17 974 66 3419 2028 7 38 37 1075 1018 67 3524 2052 8 50 38 11 34 1063 68 3630 2076 9 64 39 11 94 11 06 69 3737 2100

10 79 40 1256 1149 70 3847 2123 II 95 41 1320 1191 71 3957 2145 12 113 42 1385 1233 72 4069 2166 13 133 43 1451 1273 73 4183 2187 14 154 44 1520 1314 74 4299 2207 15 177 45 1590 1353 75 4416 2226 16 201 46 1661 1392 76 4534 2245 17 227 47 1734 1430 77 1654 2263 18 254 48 1809 1468 78 4776 2280 19 283 49 1885 1504 79 4899 2297 20 314 50 1963 1541 80 5024 2313 21 346 51 2042 1576 81 5150 2328 22 380 52 2123 161 l 82 5278 2343 23 415 53 2205 1645 83 5108 2357 24 452 54 2289 1678 84 5539 2370 25 491 55 2375 1711 85 5672 2383 26 531 56 2462 1743 86 5806 2395 27 572 57 2550 1775 87 5942 2406 28 615 58 264 1 1805 88 6079 2417 29 660 59 2733 1836 89 6218 2427 30 707 60 2826 1865 90 6359 2437

TA - 0.785d2 .. ATA - - 0.335d2 + 69.3d - 1087

39

__ __.....

4 .( .I

2

Guide for Pla111 ~PPlll 40

TABLE 4.5. English units. Trunk Areas (TA)* and Adjusted Trunk Areas (ATA)** based on trunk circumferenc (c) at 4.5 fl (1.4 m).

TA l \TA c TA c TA c

TA ATA c '>

. ) '> in2 in in- in in- in

in- in in2 int

6 3 5 1 208 95 722 712 140 1568 13.)4

7 4 52 21G 06 737 728 111 1590 136;

8 5 53 225 97 753 743 142 1613 13

9 6 54 233 98 76 759 143 1636 1:192

10 8 55 242 99 7 1 775 144 1659 140i

11 10 56 251 100 800 790 145 1682 14li

12 12 57 260 101 8 16 805 1'16 1705 1430

13 14 58 269 102 832 821 1'17 1729 llL

14 16 59 278 103 849 836 148 1752 1454

15 18 60 288 104 865 8fi 1 149 1776 H6i

16 20 61 298 105 882 866 150 1800 14i9

17 23 62 308 106 899 881 151 1824 1491

18 26 63 318 107 916 896 152 1848 1503

19 29 64 328 108 933 9 11 153 I 73 1515

20 32 6fi 338 109 950 926 154 1897 1527

21 35 66 348 110 968 941 155 1922 1538

22 39 67 359 1 ll 986 956 156 1947 1550

23 42 68 370 11 2 1004 970 157 1972 1562

24 46 69 381 113 1022 985 158 1997 1573

25 50 70 392 11'1 1040 1000 159 2022 1585

26 54 71 403 11 5 1058 1014 160 2048 1597

27 58 72 415 11 6 1076 1029 161 2074 1608

28 63 73 426 117 1095 1043 162 2100 1619

29 67 74 438 11 8 1114 1057 163 2126 1631

30 72 75 450 119 11 33 1071 164 2152 1642

31 77 76 462 120 11 52 1085 165 2178 1653

32 82 77 474 121 1171 1100 166 220-1 1664

33 87 78 487 122 l 191 1 ll4 167 2231 1675

34 92 79 499 123 1210 Jl28 168 2258 1686

35 98 80 512 124 1230 Jl41 169 2285 1697

36 104 81 525 125 1250 1155 170 2312 1708

37 110 82 538 126 1270 1169 171 2339 1718

3 11 6 S:l 55 1 127 1290 1183 172 2367 1729

39 122 84 564 128 13 11 1196 173 2394 1740

40 128 5 578 129 133 1 1210 174 2422 1750

4 1 134 86 592 130 1352 1223 175 2450 1761

42 111 87 606 131 1373 1237 176 2478 1771

43 118 88 620 132 1394 1250 177 2506 1781

44 155 89 631 1:33 1415 1263 178 2535 1792

45 162 00 648 134 1436 1276 179 2563 1802

46 169 91 662 135 1458 1290 180 2592 1812

47 177 92 677 136 1480 1303 LS I 2621 1822

48 184 93 692 137 1502 1316 182 2650 1832

49 192 94 707 138 1524 1329 183 2679 1842

50 200 139 1546 1342 184 2708 1852

TA - o.osoc-l .. ATA - 0.0333c2 + 22.l c - JO 7

C1iaptrr4: Factors in Plant A7lpraisal II

TABLE 4.6. Meu;c units. Trunk Areas (TA)* and Adjusted Trw1k Areas (ATA)** based on trunk diamete r (d) al 1.4 rn ( 4.5 ft).

d TA ct TA d TA ATA ct TA ATA '> ')

crn2 .. cm2 " l'ffi cm- cm cm cm cm ('Ill cm-

5 20 41 1320 76 4534 4421 j 12 9847 8490 6 28 42 1385 77 4(i54 4546 113 10024 8590 7 38 43 1451 78 4776 4670 114 10202 8690 50 44 1520 79 4899 479:1 11 5 10382 8790 9 64 45 1590 80 5024 4916 116 10563 8888 10 79 46 1661 81 5150 5038 117 10746 8986 II 95 47 1734 82 527 5159 118 10930 9083 12 113 4 1809 S.1 5408 5280 119 11116 9180 13 133 49 1885 84 5539 5400 120 1130

4 .( .< 2

Guidi' for PlaJU Appnim 42

TABLE 4.7. Metric units. Trunk Areas (TA)* and Adjusted 'Ihmk Areas (ATA)** based on trunk circumference (c) at 1.4 m (.t.5 ft).

1~ c TA c TA c TA c TA c cm2 cm

2 .,

cm cm2

cm cm cm cm-

cm

16 20 61 298 106 899 151 l 24 196 I 30;a

17 23 62 308 107 916 152 184 197 310:.i

18 26 63 318 108 933 153 1 73 19 3136

19 29 64 328 109 950 J&-1 1 97 199 316.~

20 32 65 338 1 JO 968 155 1922 200 ~

21 35 66 3'18 1 J 1 9 6 156 1917 201 3'.?r!

22 39 67 359 112 1004 157 1972 202 3264

23 42 68 370 113 1022 158 1997 203 3297

24 46 69 381 114 10..tO 159 2022 2().t m

25 50 70 392 11 !) 1058 J60 204 20:> 3S11~

26 54 71 403 116 1076 16 1 2071 206 33!!~

27 58 72 415 117 1095 162 2100 207 342b

28 63 7:3 426 11 8 1114 163 2126 208 3461

29 67 74 438 11 9 1133 164 2152 209 349-\

30 72 75 450 120 1152 165 217 2LO 3528

31 77 76 462 121 117 1 J66 2204 211 356:!

32 82 77 474 122 11 91 167 2231 212 3-5!!6

33 87 78 487 123 1210 168 2258 213 3630

34 92 79 499 124 1230 169 2285 214 3~

35 98 80 5 12 125 1250 170 2312 215 369

36 104 81 525 126 1270 171 2339 216 3732

37 11 0 82 538 127 1290 172 2367 217 3767

38 116 83 551 128 1311 173 2394 218 380"2

39 122 84 564 129 1331 174 2422 219 3837

40 128 85 578 130 1352 175 2450 220 3872

41 134 86 592 131 1373 176 2478 221 390i

42 141 87 606 132 1394 177 2506 222 3943

43 148 88 620 133 1415 178 2535 223 3978

44 155 89 6:l4 134 1436 179 2563 224 4014

45 162 90 648 135 1458 180 2592 225 4050

46 169 91 662 136 1480 I S L 2621 226 4086

47 177 92 677 137 1502 182 2650 227 4122

48 184 93 692 138 1524 183 2679 228 4159

49 192 94 707 139 1546 184 2708 229 4195

50 200 95 722 140 1568 185 2738 230 4232

51 208 96 737 141 1590 186 2768 231 4269

52 216 97 753 142 1613 187 2798 232 4306

53 225 9 768 143 1636 188 2828 233 4343

54 233 99 784 141 1659 189 2858 234 4380

55 242 100 800 145 1682 190 2 235 4418

56 251 IO I 816 146 1705 191 291 236 4456

57 260 102 832 147 1729 192 2949 237 4494

58 269 103 849 148 1752 193 2980 238 4532

59 278 101 65 149 1776 194 3011 239 4570

60 288 105 2 150 1800 195 3042 240 460

C/UJpler 4: Factors in Pio nl Approisal (' TA AT/\ c TA AT/\ c TA ATA c TA ATA cm2 "

., cm2 cm2 rm2

., (' ffi 2 cm cnr cm cm- cm cm cm-

211 4646 4621 286 6544 6362 331 8765 7967 376 11310 9436 212 4685 4661 287 6590 6399 332 8818 8001 377 11370 9467 213 4724 4701 288 6636 6436 333 8 71 8035 378 11 431 9498 244 1763 474 1 2 9 66 2 6473 334 8924 8069 :!79 11491 9529 N5 4802 47 l 290 672 6!)10 335 8978 8103 31:!0 11552 9560 246 4841 4821 291 6774 6547 336 9032 8137 381 11613 9591 217 4881 4861 292 682 1 6584 337 9086 8171 382 11674 9622 248 4920 490 1 293 6 68 662 1 338 9140 8205 383 11735 9652 249 4960 4940 294 6915 6657 339 9194 8238 384 11706 9683 250 5000 4980 295 6962 6694 340 9248 8272 385 118fi8 97 14 251 5040 5020 296 7009 6731 341 9302 8305 386 11920 9744 2-? ~ 5080 5059 297 7057 6767 342 9357 8:339 387 11982 9775 253 5121 5098 298 7104 6803 343 94 12 S.'372 388 12044 9805 254 5161 5138 299 7152 6840 344 9467 8406 389 12106 9835 255 5202 5177 300 7200 6876 345 9522 8439 390 12168 9865 256 5243 5216 301 7248 6912 346 9577 8472 39 1 12230 9896 257 5284 5256 302 7296 6948 347 9633 850:> 392 12293 9926 258 5325 5295 303 7345 6984 348 9688 8538 393 12356 9936 259 5366 5334 304 7393 7020 349 9744 8571 394 12419 9986 260 5408 5373 305 7442 7056 350 9 00 8604 395 12482 10016 261 5450 541 2 306 7491 7092 35 1 9856 8637 396 12545 10045 262 5492 5450 307 7540 7128 352 9912 8670 397 12609 10075 263 5534 5489 308 75 9 7164 353 9969 8702 39 12672 10105 264 5576 552 :309 7638 7199 354 10025 8735 399 12736 10134 265 5618 5566 310 7688 7235 355 10082 8768 400 12800 10164 266 5660 5605 311 7738 727 1 356 10139 8800 401 12864 10193 267 5703 5643 312 7788 7306 357 10196 8833 402 12928 10223 268 5746 5682 313 7838 734 l 358 10253 8865 403 12993 10252 269 6789 5720 :3 14 7888 7377 359 10310 8897 404 13057 10282 270 5832 5759 :31 5 7938 7412 360 10368 8929 405 13122 103 11 271 5875 5797 316 7988 7447 361 10426 8962 406 13187 10340 272 59 19 5835 317 8039 7482 362 10484 8994 407 13252 10369 27:1 5962 5873 318 8090 7517 363 10542 9026 408 13317 10398 274 6006 59 11 319 814 1 7652 364 10600 9058 409 13382 10427 275 6050 5949 320 8192 7687 365 10658 9090 410 13448 10466 276 6094 5987 321 8243 7622 366 10716 9121 411 13514 10485 277 6138 6025 322 8295 7657 367 10776 9163 412 13580 10513 278 6183 6062 323 8346 7692 368 10834 9185 413 13646 10542 279 6227 6100 324 8398 7726 369 10893 9217 414 1371 2 10571 280 6272 613 325 8450 7761 370 10952 9248 415 13778 10599 281 6317 6175 326 8502 7796 371 11011 9280 416 13844 10628 2 2 6362 6213 327 8554 7830 372 11071 93 11 417 13911 10656 283 6407 6250 328 8607 7864 373 11130 9342 418 13978 10684 284 6152 628 329 8659 7899 374 11190 9374 41 9 14045 10713 285 6498 6325 3:30 8712 7933 375 11250 9405 420 14 112 10741

'TA 0.080c2 ''ATA 0.0336c2 + 56.4c 7020

SI 43 .6 .( 2(

44 Guidr j(Jr Pl11nJ

The 'frw1k Area or Adju ted Trunk Areacan be o btained from a c urve (Figure 4.1), tables (fables 4.4-4. 7) depending on whether English or metnc mea-surements of trunk diameters fdJ or circwnference lrl are used), or from these formulas: F or trunk diameters 30 in. (75 cm) or less (either English or metric):

'Ihmk area = 0. 785English units: ATA = -0.335d2 + 69.3d- 1087 ATA = -0.0333& + 22. lc- 1087 Metric units: ATA = -0.335d2 + l 76d - 7020 ATA = -0.336c2 + 56.4c - 7020

Software to compute these equations is commerciall} available.

If circumference is measured in centimeters, diame-ter in inches can be closely approximated by dividing circ umference (c) by 8 (2.54 x 3.14 = 7.9756). For example, a tree with a circumference of 40 cm has a diameter of 5 in. 1hmk Area and Basic 'free Cost can be more easily determined in centimeters and size more understandably expre ed in inches. A computer can be programmed to input circumference in centime-ters and produce djameter and trunk area in English units and the Appraised Value in any cwrency.

Elliptical Cross Sections It should be realized that few trunk cross sections are circles, and that the farther a cro ection deviates from a circle, the mailer the area will be for a given circumference. lf it is obvious that a trunk cross section i elliptical (oval) instead of a circle, use the following fonnuJa to more ac urately detennine 'frwtlc Area:

Area = 0. 7 5 x large t diameter x mallest diameter in tead of

Area = 0. 78.5 x ([2

(7iaptrr4: Factors in Plant Am>misal

FIGURE 4.2. 1Tecs with fairly straight, uprighl trunks with the lowest branch arising on U1c trunk higher Ulan G fl (1.8 m) above llie ground should be measured at 4.5 fl (1.4 m).

"Swedish" calipers can measure up to 50 in. (125 cm) and are handy to measure diameters of elliptical trnnks, as well as low-branched trees. Elliptical trunks commonly occur on leaning lr s, closely planted trees in a wind-row, and tree ubj c t to prevailing winds. For trees wilh trunk cro scclion larger than 700 in2 (4,400 cm2), use one of the Tables 4.4--4. 7 Lo conve1t 'frunk Areas lo Adjusted Trunk Areas. (For example, if the calculated area of an elliptical trunk TA is 1,520 in2, the ATA is 1,334 in2). Height of Measurement Thees normally onsid red loo large to transplant are lo be measured 4.5 fl (1.4 m) above the groillld (Figure 4.2). Measuring the circwnference slightly above or below the usual 4.5 fl (1.4 m) height of trees with even slighl trunk taper can r ult in considerable differences in 'frunk Area or Adjusted 'lhmk Area If the trunk has a smaller circumference at a height below the circumference a t 4.5 fl (1.4 m), use lhe lower measurement to detemune lhe lrilllk area. The s in a forest characte1istically have les.5 tap r Lhan Lr growing in an open landscape.

15

Trees in o forest choroderisticol/y hove less toper than trees growing in on open londs!ope.

-

46 Guide for Plant .~pprolSQ/

FIGURE 4.3. As shown in the top and bottom drawings, the trunk circumference hould be rneasurccl at right angles to the trunk 4.5 rt ( 1.4 m) along t11e center of the trunk axis, so that the height is the average o f the horte l and longest sides of the trunk.

C'hapter4: Factors in Pl.ant Am>raisa/

FIGURE 4A. When low branches preclude measuring tJ1e tnmk at 4.5 ft ( 1.4 m), measure tJw smallest circumferen

48 GuidR for Plant Approi.sal

Figure 4.5. In a multi-stem 11w, measwi? the circumference of each trunk tern at 4.5 ft (l.4 m) above tJ1e ground. The cros.5-scctional square-inch area of each trunk stem is cletemtined and then added togetJ1er to obtain a total tnmk an'a that is representative of the size of the tree, assuming each stem conllibutes its proportionate share to the canopy.

wement at 4.5 ft (l.4 m) of nearby trees of the same species of similar crown volume can be used in place of the measurement of the tree in question or as a check of its measwement. Excessive Trunk Flore. Exe ive tmnk flare presents a problem similar to that of low-branching trees. If the trunk continues to taper markedly above 4.5 ft (1.4 m), a trunk measurement at that height may not acctrrately repre ent the size of the lre . Either measure higher on the trunk if it will provide a reasonable estimate of tree ize, or measure nearby tree as suggested above for low-branching tree . Multi-Stem Tree (or Tight Clump of Several Trees) (Figure 4.5). Determining the ize of a multi-stem tree may require considerable judgment in d ciding how to mea-ure each stem and e timate its contJibution to the

total tree. veraJ ways are possible.

OmplIT4: Factors i11 Plaut Amm1isal

Method 1: If a multi-stem tree of similar transplant-able size is available, use the Replac mcnL o l Method.

Method 2: lf all of the stems rui e from or within 3 fl ( l m) of the ground and each stem conllibul s equally to U1e canopy, then determine the um of the cro -sectional areas of each lem measwed 4.5 ft ( l.4 m) from its base (s e Figur 4.5). Differ nt stem configu-rations may requir measuring at o ther heights or loca-tions to more accw-alely repre ent the size of a stem. Stems that fork 3 to 5 fl (1 lo 1.5 m) ab ve the ground can be measured either at their least c ircumference below the fork ( ce Figure 4.4) or 12 to 18 in. (30 to 45 cm) above the fork.

Method 3: lf all the terns do not contribute equally to their proportional hare of the crown, then deter-mine the sum of the cross- ectional area of each of the stems and a

50 Guide for Pfa111 lppruisal

to accurately determine the Size of the casualty), a reasonable approximation of the tree's Size hould be acceptable. This is particularly true where the factors of Size would affect the mathematical certainty of the value of the casualty.

Even though the U.S. Forest Service provides tables of species diamete1 , it does not provide a reasonable estimate of size because the data applies lo forest trees with different crown and taper characteristics than landscape trees that have been exposed to more sun and wind. The diameter size of a landscape tree that has been cut off below a 4.5 ft (1.4 m) height measurement can be estimated with reasonable accuracy if there are landscape trees of the same specie growing under similar conditions nearby. The accuracy of uch an estimate depends on the number of existing trees of the same species, how close to the ground the tree

TABLE 4.8. Black oak species (Quercus velutina), Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Trunk diamelers at 4.5 ft (Y) and near the ground (X) (assumed lo be stumps) of 20 open-grown landscape black oak trees and the values of XY and X2 are required for a linear regression equation.

Tree x -# twnv dia. y - d4.5' XY ~ I 12.25 9 110.25 150.06 2 8.5 7 59.50 72.25 3 14 9.75 136.50 196 4 10 9 90 100 5 12.5 IL 137.50 156.25 6 10.5 8 .5 89.25 110.25 7 12.5 10.25 128. 13 156.25 8 9.75 7.75 75.56 95.06 9 12.5 10.25 128. 13 156.25

JO 1 J.5 10 11 5 132.25 11 9 8 72 81 12 12 11 .25 135 144 13 8 7 56 64 14 11.5 10.5 120.75 132.25 15 10.5 10 105 11 0.25 16 15.25 13.75 209.69 232.56 17 10 8.f> 85 JOO 18 8 7 56 6-1 19 12.215 11 134.75 150.06 20 12 l l 132 144

Total~ 222.5 190.5 2176.01 2546.75

Cliapter4: Factors i11 Plant Appraisal

was cut, and the method of calcula tio n. The mor trees of the same species, the more re liable will be lhe estimate.

One method i to measure th trunk diameters at tJ1e height where the tree was cut and at 4.5 ft (1.4 m) (designated X and Y re pectively in Table 4.8) of the casualty tree and up to 20 trees of the same p cie growing nearby. Then divide th s mall r urn [ Y, lhose at 4.5 ft (1.4 m)] by the larger diameter sum (X) Lo obtain the quotient (q). Multiply the tump diameter of the casualty tree by q to obtain lh e timated diameter of the casualty t:r eat 4.5 fL

Y + X = the ratio of the d 4.5 n to the d stump = q Then:

d4.5 rt= dstump of the casualty tr x q

Example la.

If the diameter of the casualty stump= 10.2 in. From Table 4.8:

LXdstump lYd.1.5 n q

d~ .5 fl d .1.5 fl

Example lb.

= 222.5 = 190.5 = IYd4.5 ft + IXdstump = 190.5 + 222.5 = 0.856 = clo;Lump of lhe casualty tree x q = 10.25 in. x 0.856 = 8.7 in. Round to 8.8 in.

(see Appendix Il)

If only the first ten tree listed in Table 4.8 had been measwed, q would be 0.811 and the estimated djameter of the casualty tree would be 8.3 in. (21 cm). If only the last ten trees had been mea-sured, q would be 0.90 and the estimated diameter would be 9.2 in. (23 cm). The cross-sectional areas of the trunk at 4.5 ft (1.4 m) using U\e diameters of the 20 and 10 tree measurements are:

Area = 0. 785

52

Location

Guide for Plant Appraisal

Location involves the Site of a property or landscape. a plant's unique functional and ae the tic Contribu-tions, and the Placement of the individual plant in a spe.-cific landscape. The Location rating is the average of the Site, Contribution, and Placement percentage rating;.

Site Rating The value of a Site is expr ed by its relative market value within the area in which the Site is located (see Chapter 3, Chapter 7, and Minnesota 1999). A Site is rated in relation to the value of other areas in the same city, county, or region, including the area's economic, functional, and aesthetic asp cts.

The general appearance of the Site in which the appraised plant(s) i located is important. An attrac-tive, well-maintained house, in an effective natural or designed landscape wiU1 att.racUve, well-proportioned, healthy plants adds to the value of a Site. On the other hand, a median of a busy fow'-lane, divided boulevard in a business di trict with attractive, well-kept stores is more valuable than a sinlilar etting with poorly main tained stores and utilHy pol along the street.

The relative market value of the area and Site is rated as follow: .

Very high 900/~100% High 80%-89% Average Low Very low

700/o-7goAJ 60%-Q9% 10%-59%

A remote Site in a wooded area may get a higher rating than a similar wooded Site in an intensive development On the other hand, the greater the use of a mall or park, the greater could be its rating.

Contribution Rating functional and ae thetic conllibutions of a plant influ-ence its value in mo t etlings. Th benefits may be affected by plant ize, hape, branch trncture, foliage density, and disllibution. A plant may have historic sig-nificance, be a rare pecies, or po ess a unique strnc-tu re. P la nts may have screening, privacy control, wildlife habitat, or energy-saving qualities (see Figure 1.1 and Table 4.9).

nwpter4: Factors in PlantAppro.isnl

Placement Rating The Placement of the plant being appra ised may determine how effective it is in providing its functional and aesthetic a ttributes (rating range 10 lo 100 per-cent). For example, lhe placement of a d ciduous tree to provide summer shade and winter s un for a patio is critical. Similarly, plant Placement i functionally impo11ant for windbreaks, now depo ition, ero ion control, and dust reduction. Placement in the Site is al o important from an ae thetic vie wpoint when a plant can provide a land cape focus, frame a view, screen unsightly objects, or accent a building. ertain species may have characteristic that r quire greater maintenance to be effective in the landscape unle the plants can b placed to minirniz th amount of care. For example, a tree with a heavy fruit or leaf prob-lem would require high maintenance, unless it were located where s uch litter would not be a problem. 1l1 seed pods of lhe Japanese pagodatree ( ophorajapon-ica) are me y on walks in rainy autumnal areas. ln colder regions, however, lhe pods remain dry and hard. Ratings should be acijustcd lo reil ct lhese or other pos-ibilities.

TABLE 4.9. Suggested functional (F) and aesthetic (A) contribution factors (rating range 10 lo 100 percent).

Accent structur (A) Aesthetic values

(growth habit, bark texture/color, foliage color/texture, flower odor/ color/size, fruit prominence/duration, fruit size/use, fruit color/odor (A)

Frames view (A) Historic, rare, or unusual

specimen (A) Light and glare shield (F)

oise attenuation (F) Safety barrier (F)

S:J

Air purification (F) Allergenic prop rties (pollen and

dem1a toxins) (F) Screens undesirable views (A)(F) Sun radiation and reflection

Cleanliness (flowers, fruit, leave , twigs, duration of leaf fall) (A) (F)

Creates vistas (A) Defines spac (A) Di.Jt and dust adsorption (F) Erosion control (F)(A)

control (F) Thaffic control (F) 'franspiration cooling (F) Unusually attractive plant

features (A) Wildlife attraction (F)(A) Wmd control (F)

54

A single specimen tree may hove greater value than it would if

it were one among several

Placement within a Site usually would have little effect on a plant's transpirational, photosynthetic, or air purification contribution. An exception might be the reduction of air particulates and/or fog by the proper Place ment of a thick windbreak planting.

A single specimen tree may have greater value than it would if it were one among everal. The los.s of a single tree would be a greater loss than if one of several well' lost On the other hand, the loss of one tree in a row of a formal planting of trees could be a greater IOS5 than the average value of all the trees would be; the loss of one tree would be much more apparent, and its IOS5 would detract from the appeal of the intact planting.

A plant's Placemen t also may have an unfavorable effect on the Site and on the planl Overhead utility wires (see Chapter 11), streetlights, and nearby building.5 or walls are major obstacles that often prevent a plant from obtaining (or maintaining) a natrna.l form. Con-trolling a plant's size can be expensive. Large trees in narrow planting trips and other re tricted spaces can be adversely affected, causing considerable damage to pavement and structures.

Plant Placement, and its functional and aesthetic contributions, are more important in certain landscapes than in others. For example, plant Placement to pro-tect a building entrance from winter winds may be more important than it wouJd be in a public park or along a city streeL

Determining the Location Factor The Location Factor is determined as follows:

(Site+ Contribution + PJacement) +3= Location Rating

1. Rate the overall quality of the general area and of the buildings, landscape tructures, and plantings of the Site. Detennine an appropriate rating (see Site rating).

2. Rate the Contribution of the plant in providing each of the functional and aesthetic benefits identified (Table 4.9). Determine an appropriate rating.

3. Rate how effectively the P la cement of the plant provides its functional and aesthetic benefits. Detcnnine an appropriate rating.

4. Average the Site, Contribution and Placement ratings to determine Lhe Location rating.

(7wpter4: Factors in ~ant Appraisal

Example

A solitary 30-in. (91-cm) diameter, 50-ft (lfrm) tall while? oak tree (Que1r.us alba) is localed 2.5 ft (7.6 m) in the direction of Uw aflc:>moon sun from the back corner of a four-bedroom ranch- tyle home in a moderately "upscale" neighborhood. The tree hades a baC'kyard patio and screens the view from the living and dining rooms from indus-trial smokestacks 1,000 yd (1 km) to the souU1we L An ex'tensive lawn is bordered by well-kept shmbs, bedding plants, and small trees.

1. Site rating range (10 to 100 percent) The area is a high-quality, well-maintained suburban residence and is given a rating of 80% under Land Use.

Site rating = + 10, or 80% 2. Contribution rating range (10 to 100 percent)

Unique tree? charactc1istics include 10-fi ( 3-m) clearance and well-thinned crown that lets surnrner brrezes and winter sun through. Light, filtered shade. Tree structure is intere ling.

Contribution rating = 90% 3. Placement rating range (10 to