Has anyone had any experience with relocating smaller (up to 6" DBH)trees to other parts of development sites. This is not a question on how to transplant trees but about the idea of relocating trees that are going to be removed anyway and using them in areas where there are no trees. And also it seems that in some cases it would be in the developers long term interest to start a tree farm.
Thanks, Ken

Reply to post by Ken Six, on September 08, 1998 at 23:17:10:

Ken, I've worked with a couple of developers doing this. The considerations are cost, availability of plants, and site considerations.

Cost is always the first thing they ask about. With smaller trees, there may not be a cost advantage to transplanting on site. Sometimes it costs less to just rip out the trees that are there and replace with nursery stock. Consider the condition of the trees you would be moving, and whether they will tolerate being relocated, and what the resulting condition will be. Will you guarantee them for any length of time, compared to nursery stock? If the plants are ins some way unusual or difficult to get at nurseries, that might be reason to try to keep them.

It should not be dismissed without considering the alternatives, but you have to do a little homework first.
Russ

Reply to post by Ken Six, on September 08, 1998 at 23:17:10:

Russ is right. We do incorporate within the Arboricultural Implication Study (AIS) specification, for the transplantation of young on-site species, often for re-planting to the periphery and in order to maintain/increase overall amenity values and conservation, however, much work is involved in the movement of established (common) plant material. Cost will often dicate that new plantings (nursery stock) of similar/same species type and dimensions very often survive far better than transplants. Though the younger more unusual species, will be transplanted if at all practicable. One such option is to transplant and nurture away from the site until established in containers and return to re-plant on site, though again the cost is the key factor in the minds of all development companies.

Paul H.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on September 08, 1998 at 23:17:10:

Hi Ken,

You are right. there is nor reason to kut down a 6 inch DBH tree.
I doubt that it would be cheaper to buy them in your area with your
requirement for machine dug trees it seems good for the developer too.

They dont have farms for the same rason as they don't have many things
... they do what they do best and want people like you to take care of
the trees. So get that farm of your going.

Mark

Reply to post by Ken Six, on September 08, 1998 at 23:17:10:

I agree with the other comments. Relative costs, surviveability (that's where expert opinion comes in), 'unusualness' of the resource all must be considered.

I'd add two additional issues: 1) developer commitment is key; they have to want to preserve or replace green resources; they have to be prepared to provide aftercare not just talked into moving stuff around because the macine and operator are paid for anyway and have some extra time. 2) consider all the benefits, not just transplant vs new costs; in the early 80's we used a large tree spade to move 8-12' tall rhodonendrons around a development site, it cost more than just cutting them down and more than planting new stuff but it provided instant screen for some concerned neighbors and established a good rapporet with the regulatory people; not all of them survived long term (never would have? poor aftercare afterme?) but they did survive long enough to give new stock a chance to catch up.

I haven't been personally involved but I know that on site tree farms are done. See the literature from National Arbor Day Foundation, National Adsscociation of Homebuilders (US), American Forests, maybe the ISA videos for specific examples. I would think both scope/duration of project and again developer commitment are factors.

Scott