We live in Colorado and plan on building a house on a foothill. In order to get a building permit, a member of the Forestry Service had to come out. He thinned out our property and no trees could be within 15 feet of the house.

Once the lumberjack followed his wishes, the Forestry Service came back out to inspect. Though, it was a different guy. NOW THIS GUY is saying we have to prune ALL of our tree branches up to 10 FEET above the ground and this should be done in a 90 FOOT RADIUS of our building site!

#1) Won't this kill the TREES?(all Pines)

#2) Do we have a leg to stand on?

THIS SEEMS SO DRASTIC and we were wanting to preserve the wildlife of the land and even positioned our house in order not to disturb nature as much as possible

PLEASE HELP SOON! We have no idea what to do!

Reply to post by Chris, on February 09, 2000 at 22:07:58:

There could be many reasons why these regulations are in place. The first that comes to mind is fire protection.

You should contact the state agency and ask for written copies of the regulations, laws and ordinances that pertain and that they are citing. Read them carefully.

You might also contact a local consulting arborist who is familiar with the regulations and who may be able to advise you on how to proceed. There is a searchable database for the American Society of Consulting Arborists at
http://www.asca-consultants.org or use the link below.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on February 09, 2000 at 22:07:58:

The reason for the tree removal order is indeed wildfire mitigation. The forest service personnel are working under building and zoning codes passed by the county you live in. As with any regulatory agency, different inspectors have different views.
Get online with Colorado State University Extenion at www.colostate.edu. Click on extension and natural resources. There are three Service in Action sheets explaining how and why this thinning is needed.
As for recourse, check with your local building department, the forester is working under contract as the law is written.
Good Luck

Reply to post by Bill Cassel, on February 09, 2000 at 23:41:47:

Sounds like the government> Can you have your house built to be fire proof instead
and keep the trees.

Mark

Reply to post by Mark Hartley, on February 10, 2000 at 10:19:39:

Good point Mark. There was an article a few years ago in Finehomebuilding Magazine (Taunton Press) giving such building details for a house in one of the California fire zones, perhaps Oakland. If I find the reference I'll post it. Or try a search at http://www.taunton.com

You might not like the look... lots of concrete, stucco and other non-flammable materials.

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on February 11, 2000 at 02:59:49:

I saw a photo of this house, following the Oakland fires. it was about the only thing standing on a barren hillside after the fire.

It was stucco, with tile roof. The owner had also done a great job of clearing the dead debris from his property, so a few trees on his lot, although badly damaged, survived the fire.

The reason for pruning low branches is to minimize the risk of crowning of the fire, if a low brush fire does get started.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on February 11, 2000 at 06:11:18:

As to your other question; will the trees be killed. Without any specs', its just a comment, but generally evergreens are very tolerant of low limb removal. Injury to the trees may be very minimal.
Post some specs' and we can comment with greater accuracy.
Good luck!

Reply to post by David Hucker, on February 12, 2000 at 13:02:13:

David, you said:

"but generally evergreens are very tolerant of low limb removal. Injury to the trees may be very minimal."

Crown raising has to be the worst form of pruning for all species:

Crown raising requires the removal of the largest limbs on the tree - major wounds created by the removal of a significant amount of photosynthetic bio-mass (carbs for defense) and all in close proximity (plumb lines) - if pathogenic initiation kicks in, surely extensive decay would be inevitable and fairly rapid (compromising structural stability) along with the obvious limited safe useful life expectancy? - your statement seems rather sweeping?? What are your data to support it???

Thanks

Paul H.