What method do most municipalities and states use for replacing a large tree with multiple small ones. Replacing a 10" caliber with 10 1", or even 2 5" does not seem adequate. My Tree Board uses the diameter method.
Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on February 10, 2003 at 22:28:52:
About half the text I wrote disaapeared from that message and it does not makes sense. (??) I'll try to clean it up later but gotta go now.
Reply to post by Scott, on February 11, 2003 at 07:59:04:
OK, let's try this again.
I don't know if there is most common method or if anyone has tried to survey to find out.
Methods that are customary or allowable by law will vary from place to place. State laws usually govern local laws. So one individual might suspect "everybody uses the peanut butter and jelly method" and that might be true in the State of Bliss but not in other states.
If you can actually replace a 10" tree (not so uncommon these days) you have an actual cost for that. In the abstract to be made whole you should get that cost, say X. The cost of (10) 1" trees,say Y, will probably be
But that's a basis for cost. If your area method applies depreciation to cost to get value (as in TFM) and your dia:dia: method does not, the latter could conceivably be better.
And you must consider the survival and growth rates of a 10" transplant. After 5 years you might find more viable canopy with the (10) 1" trees.
But you try to recover as much value as you can and then plant what you want. You should recover value of the lost plant, not just cost of smaller replacements.
So you want to maximize recoverable value. That will depend on A) method, B) enabling law or custom, C) how you use the recovered money.
Reply to post by Scptt, on February 11, 2003 at 08:35:37:
I agree with Scott and add that some towns here do use cross-sectional area for a truer approximation of value lost than dia. gives.
|Powered by Social Strata|