treeseer

example of ctla bethods

CASE #2: TRESPASSING AND OVERPRUNING
BACKGROUND In the past, Mrs. Oldhouse had sought permission from Mr. Exotica to have the pecan tree that grew from Mr. Exotica’s yard pruned so her house could be painted. Mr. ExoTica agreed, and the tree was pruned to allow the painters a few feet clearance. Recently, Mrs. Oldhouse’s contractors, seeking to avoid “improper” pruning cuts back to small lateral branches, entered Mr. Exotica’s yard to make a “proper” pruning cut, all the way back to the stem.
Mr. Exotica communicated his displeasure to the contractor, and asked for compensation. The contractor’s insurance company called a consulting arborist, who reported that the remaining tree was viable, and there was no loss incurred. (It was later discovered this arborist had failed to keep up with his CEUs and let his certification lapse.) Mr. Exotica called another consulting arborist.
ASSIGNMENT On August 15, 2525 I went to 1108 Goddess Drive in Deviltown NC, the home of Mr. Exotica. My assignment was to appraise the economic loss to the property as a result of the removal of major portions of two Carya illinoisensis, pecan trees. I interviewed Mr. Exotica about the maintenance history of the trees as he has observed them over the last 24 years, and the circumstances involving the recent work. The purpose of this report is to provide a basis for compensation.
OBSERVATIONS I inspected and photographed the tree branches, trunks, roots and soil. The soil is typical of urban soil in the area, with a thin layer of topsoil over clay subsoil. I observed tire tracks to the west of the trees. The soil probe could not penetrate very far under the tracks, an indication that the soil there was very compacted by the traffic. The low density of the soil in the area that was not driven on indicates that it was not previously damaged by sun, rain or wind. The lack of vegetation in that area other than moss indicates that it was heavily shaded before the recent work.

Several roots were visible on the surface of the soil. Two roots were apparently damaged physically by tires. Tire damage was also evident on one buttress root, which is part of the trunk. A section of bark 3” x 5” was detached and killed by the tire. The weight of the truck compacted the soil, which will need correction by aerating the soil so that it regains sufficient oxygen levels to restore root growth and function.

The largest wound on the trunk of the tree closest to the street measures 14” and shows growth rings. The configuration of the branches above shows that the removed limb once projected in a southwesterly direction. It apparently comprised about one-quarter of the tree’s crown. The wound on the other tree measures 20”, the same approximate size as the remaining stem, and shows over 90 annual growth rings. It grew to the west, and seems to have comprised close to two-thirds of the tree canopy. Most of the remaining tree hangs over the Extica home.

DISCUSSION The Contributions these trees deliver to the property are substantial, and too diverse to detail in this report. Following are a few of the more tangible benefits:

Shade. Located on the southwest exposure of the building, these trees block the radiation from the sun in the summer months. The temperature under large trees is often more than ten degrees cooler than in the open. A nearby property that lost all its shade trees had a 67% increase in cooling costs.
Since the trees are deciduous, the sun penetrates them, warming the building in winter.
Transpirational Cooling. A mature pecan tree can transpire over 200 gallons of water through its leaves per day. The evaporation of this water into vapor has a considerable cooling effect.
Erosion control. By intercepting precipitation, and also through its network of feeder roots near the surface, these trees kept the soil intact. Through the activity of microorganisms attached to and among these roots, they make a hospitable environment for smaller ornamental plants to thrive, and build the soil resource.
Wind control. By deflecting, obstructing and filtering the wind, they moderated the climate for the western portion of the Morgan property. This effect also benefited the nearby community.
Pollution and noise abatement. Gaseous and particulate pollution was intercepted by the leaves and bark, and buffered by the rootzone. The sound of traffic and other urban activity was muffled.
Ecosystem values. By attracting, sheltering and feeding wildlife, these mature trees are keystone species in the local ecosystem. Their reduction will have a ripple effect through the community of songbirds and small mammals, and other species that often escape human notice.
Architecture. Aesthetic values are harder to quantify, and are technically outside the scope of this report. However, most landscape architects would attest to value delivered by framing views, shifting patterns of sun and shade and tying together landscape elements. To the layperson’s eye, the rounded tree canopies soften and complement the architecture of buildings and other human features, bringing natural elements into the urban surroundings.
As they approach one hundred years in age, pecan trees are nearing overmaturity. As with aging humans, their adaptive response to any damage or sudden change in their growing conditions is slower and weaker than a younger specimen’s. However, the tree near the road can be expected to recover enough from the damage to deliver several more years of safe and useful life. The trunk wound is sheltered from the sun so it is less prone to cracking and accelerated decay. The crown is largely intact, and can be somewhat rebalanced through pruning and guying of branches. It will never replace the same level of shade, screen and other benefits that were removed, but its injuries are not so severe to be judged irreparable.

Damage to the northernmost tree has greatly shortened its safe useful life. There is no product known that can prevent the trunk wound from decaying, so in time it will lose its structural integrity. This tree is too old to ever close this wound. Pruning cannot correct the imbalance of the branch load, which is now entirely over the Exotica home, and there is no way to attach artificial support such as cabling. The owners may choose to invest in extending the tree’s life, but that would deliver only short-term returns relative to the contribution that the tree formerly delivered. Between the wound on the trunk and the imbalanced crown, this tree presents an impending hazard that cannot be repaired. It is therefore a total loss.
COST OF CURE
“When extensive damage has occurred, including loss of plants…the treatment to return the property to a reasonable approximation of its original condition is known as the Cost of Cure Method…by adding together Debris Removal…,Plant Replacement Cost, and Plant Restoration and Establishment Cost” (Guide, p. 76). Therefore, the loss of the second tree will be appraised by adding the cost of its removal to the cost of installing replacement plants and maintaining them until they deliver the same level of contributions that the tree once made. The damage to the first tree will be the expense of mitigating the permanent loss of canopy by pruning and guying branches, required to lessen the asymmetry caused by the whole branch removal.
Average of three estimates on removal: $887.00
Appraised value of installing an 8” replacement: $5216.00
Appraised value of maintaining both trees to parity: $2822.00

Total Appraised Value: $8925.00

Having receiving this report, Mr. Exotica submitted it to the contractor’s insurance company. After weeks of fruitless back-and-forth discourse, Mr. Exotica told the insurance company he was prepared to litigate for twice the appraised amount, in line with the NC statute allowing double damages in the case of trespassing. Three days later he received a check for $8925.00.
NC STATUTE PLANT LOSS
? 1-539.1. Damages for unlawful cutting, removal or burning of timber; misrepresentation of property lines.
(a) Any person, firm or corporation not being the bona fide owner thereof or agent of the owner who shall without the consent and permission of the bona fide owner enter upon the land of another and injure, cut or remove any valuable wood, timber, shrub or tree therefrom, shall be liable to the owner of said land for double the value of such wood, timber, shrubs or trees so injured, cut or removed.
(b) If any person, firm or corporation shall willfully and intentionally set on fire, or cause to be set on fire, in any manner whatever, any valuable wood, timber or trees on the lands of another, such person, firm or corporation shall be liable to the owner of said lands for double the value of such wood, timber or trees damaged or destroyed thereby.
(c) Any person, firm or corporation cutting timber under contract and incurring damages as provided in subsection (a) of this section as a result of a misrepresentation of property lines by the party letting the contract shall be entitled to reimbursement from the party letting the contract for damages incurred. (1945, c. 837; 1955, c. 594; 1971, c. 119; 1977, c. 859.)”
I am not a lawyer, but over the past twenty years I have seen this statute interpreted in a wide variety of ways. In the distant past, trees were so plentiful they were viewed more as commodities than amenities, so applying their value as timber was a traditional method of appraising loss. North Carolina has changed a great deal since this statute was written. Also, the authors of the statute, by including the underlined “injuring… shrubs and trees”, seem to this non-lawyer to have recognized value in plants per se, in situ, beyond their usefulness as timber or any other commodity. There is not a great deal of case law applying this statute.

From Hicks Master’s thesis, Penn State University, 2005
NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina has a typical timber trespass statute that awards one level of
damages for timber theft or arson. N.C. GEN. STAT. ? 1-539 awards double
damages for a timber trespass that occurs "without the consent and permission of
the bona fide owner" or an act of arson if a defendant "willfully and intentionally
set on fire, or cause to be set on fire" timber on the land of another. When timber
trespass results from improperly marked or located property lines, N.C. GEN.
STAT. ? 1-539 entitles "any firm or corporation, acting under contract, to
reimbursement from the party letting the contract." Additionally, N.C. GEN.
STAT. ? 14-128 considers anyone committing a "willful" timber trespass guilty of a
Class 1 misdemeanor, provided the offender is not an officer, agent, or employee of
the Department of Transportation who committed the act within a right-of-way or
easement of the Department of Transportation. Finally, N.C. GEN. STAT. ? 1-487
requires that when a title to timberland is contested, either party is not to harvest
timber until ownership is determined by court action.

CASE #4: UTILITY CLEARANCE

ASSIGNMENT
June 4 2005 I met with Mark Goodgrief. We reviewed pictures of an eastern redcedar, Juniperus virginiana tree, and a red maple tree, Acer rubrum, and discussed their history and the site. The trees were pruned by Loopy’s Tree Service on behalf of Rake Electric Company in January 2005. I was assigned to report on the trees’ change in condition, value and prognosis for safe survival in the future. With a personal site visit and a thorough examination, I can revise this report into a document defensible in a court of law. At present I am limited to observing images. The purpose of this report is to assist the Goodgriefs’ efforts to gain compensation.
OBSERVATIONS
Twenty-nine (29) images were reviewed, none of them taken before January 2005. They show a mature redcedar, twenty-two (22) inches in diameter. No problems are evident with the foliage and branches in the unpruned part of the tree, or the trunk. Approximately one quarter of the tree appears to be missing. Redcedars, especially older ones, lack the dormant buds that enable other trees to “green up” after a severe pruning. Two pictures show a closeup of the cuts with broken ends, apparently less than one foot from the trunk. Some cut ends are jagged, and one broken branch hangs down, still attached to the tree. The bark of the trunk, formerly shaded, is newly exposed to sunlight for the first half of the day. Tire prints indicate that the bucket truck drove onto the root systems of the trees.
CONCLUSIONS
The pruning work was not done in accordance with utility industry standards. The redcedar now poses a much higher risk to the power lines, for two reasons. First, the newly exposed stem is susceptible to bark death caused by sunscald, caused by sudden exposure to sunlight. If the bark dies, decay will inevitably set in, and if the wind is from the west, the top will tend to fail in the direction of the lines and the house. Second, the sudden loss of branches has an effect on the roots. Because roots are stimulated to grow by hormones made in the branch tips, removing a lot of branches from an older tree reduces root function. Essential processes like growing thicker bark in response to sunlight and growing callus—“scar”—tissue around pruning wounds are likely to be impaired because the root growth is impaired.
The homesite has lost much of the contribution that the tree made in shade, wind control, dirt and dust absorption, noise attenuation, privacy screen, transpirational cooling, and wildlife values. I am not an expert on aesthetics, but most authorities that I’ve consulted with agree that the tree has gone from a sizeable asset to the property to a sizeable liability. The majority believe that the aesthetic quality is so poor, it is an irredeemable loss. Since the bottom portion of the tree is a viable asset in terms of screen and other functions, I cannot appraise it as a total loss, but I will appraise it before and after January 2005. This appraisal is a “shorthand” version, useable only for the purposes of this report since it was done without direct gathering of evidence on site:
APPRAISAL
The tree’s cross-sectional area is 380 square inches. The Basic Value approved by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers in 2001 was $48/square inch, x 380 = a starting figure of $18, 237.00
The Species is rated at 80%, Condition at 90%, and Location at 90%; with these adjustments the tree was worth $11, 817.00 before January 2005. (Coincidentally, this is close to the cost of delivering and installing a mature replacement tree.) After the branch removal, in my estimation the Condition Rating has dropped to 20%, yielding a present value of $2,626.00, a loss of $9,191.00 due to the branch removal.
Judging from the pictures, the cuts on the red maple were farther away than the cuts on the cedar. To restore the maple to the health and symmetry that it once had, the tree will have to be pruned once next winter and once three years later. Dying branch stubs must be reduced back to healthy side branches to restore health, and light reduction cuts on the opposite side of the tree will restore symmetry. This pruning should cost approximately $150 per visit for a total of $300.00.

APPRAISED LOSS: $9,491.00

CASE #5: LIGHTNING STRIKES TWICE

ASSIGNMENT
On , 2006 I went to 112 Electric Lane Cary NC 27511. I saw a post oak, Quercus stellata, in the front yard that had lost most of its bark due to an apparent lightning strike. I was asked to appraise the economic value of the tree, and recommend ways to replace the tree’s contributions to the property. I understand the purpose and use of my report is to help the Badlucks receive reasonable compensation from their insurance company for the loss of the tree. My fee for reporting is $/hour.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A post oak was killed by lightning. Its economic value is appraised at $14,957.00 considering the loss of future benefits, or $5,300 to install and establish a smaller replacement tree, after removing the casualty tree.
OBSERVATIONS
The landscape is designed around this landmark tree, which dominates the front yard. The tree trunk has lost so much bark, the tree will soon die. Located in the southwest corner of the yard, the tree shades the home in the summer from midday through the evening.


APPRAISAL: COST OF CURE METHOD
“When extensive damage has occurred”, there is a Cost of Cure Method of appraisal, which “…determines the cost of replacement and/or repairing of plants and restoration of property to a reasonable approximation of its original condition…” It is taken from the ninth edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, authored by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers—a consortium of seven trade, educational and scientific associations, including the International Society of Arboriculture, the American Society of Consulting Arborists, the Tree Care Industry Association, the American Society of Landscape Architects, the Association of Consulting Foresters of America, and the Associated Landscape Contractors of America, and published by the International Society of Arboriculture in 2000.

This method has the advantage of addressing the loss to the property in its entirety. This Cost of Cure starts with the cost of obtaining and installing the largest commonly transplanted tree. I will use a 10” diameter tulip poplar, Liriodendron tulipifera, because it is a native, fast-growing hardwood. To consider the Badlucks’ deprivation of the use and enjoyment of the tree’s contributions until it grows to replacement size, an interest rate of 5% is compounded and applied to the cost of the installed tree. The replacement tree will take 30 years to reach the size of the casualty tree, so 1.05 x 1.05, multiplied 30 times = 4.33.

The adjusted plant cost is $900, x 4.33 = $3897.00.
Cost of installation = $2000, x 4.33 = $8660.00.
Maintenance cost will be $90/year for fertilizing and pruning, for ten years = $900.00
Removal of casualty tree $1500.00
TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE_ $14,957.00

I'd attach the whole handout but tw won't let me.

__________________


Guy Meilleur | Forensic Arborist | Better Tree Care