I need feedback from anyone whose had dealings with oaks being appraised as valued for their ecological/habitat values in neighborhoods which are primarily developed (i. e. highly degraded and not contiguous habitat).

I recently had a 'discussion' with a city arborist about the appraised value of certain oak trees which were proposed for removal. This individual made several statements which set me on my ear, so to speak. I would very much like to hear from anyone who has real experience with these issues. I have done many appraisals, but have not come across this before, and frankly, I'm in need of intelligent dialogue.

1. This person stated flatly that the City considers all oaks which are being converted from a 'natural' condition to an amenity tree (part of a built landscape) must be appraised (using ISA trunk formula) with a 100% value for both location and species. They are saying that since the oak was coming from oak woodland, it was the perfect species in the perfect location, and should be valued as such. This adds about $11,000 dollars to the appraised value of this group of 14 oak trees and seems like a stretch to me.

2. Does anybody from California have a species rating or an argument for a species rating of scrub oak (Quercus dumosa)? It's not in the book for California. One local expert told me that he used 50% as the species rating. I think this is a little low, but have never participated in the exercise of determining species rating from scratch. Suggestions?

3. This individual also stated that the Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program (IHRMP), a function of the UC system and the CA Dept of Forestry, has an alternative way of appraising tree replacement value for mitigating trees lost in natural (read GRAZING) lands. This would involve replacing diameter on an inch by inch basis. For example if I removed a single 10" DBH oak, I could mitigate by planting 5 24" box oaks of the same species (5 times 2" diameter equals 10"). This comes out relatively less expensive if you have endless land and can plant lots of small trees. It gets relatively more expensive if you have no land and must go to fewer larger (48" box for example) trees. In my example, the cost for 24" boxes would be less than $25,000. For 48" boxes (@ 4" diameter) it would run about $71,000 planted. Does anybody know anything about this? Is there a web site for IHRMP?

I think the principle question here is whether oaks in a natural, or in this case highly disturbed natural, environment should be appraised for their value in the final built landscape or for their value in the natural landscape (where I might add, the property values are far less). And what about a species rating of 100%? Doesn't species rating revolve around the species suitability as an amenity tree? If so, doesn't a species which makes a lousy amenity tree (Q. dumosa) deserve a lower species rating than a species which makes a great amenity tree (Q. Lobata)????

I await your responses!!!

Jan

Reply to post by Jan Scow, on March 04, 2000 at 10:43:52:

Hi Jan, how're things in Sherman Oaks?

First, let's start with what appraisal is and what appraised value is, generically. Appraisal is a guide to decision makers. If the decision maker is a regulatory agency (town, city, planning district, proerty owner, whatever) with the authority to make decsions about certain trees it may also have the authority to require certain appraisal methodologies or assumptions. The numerical result may be as much a penalty, or arbitrary decision figure as a "value" which might be determined in another setting. In an appraisal context there is no one, universal, global or right value. "Intrinsic" value, IMO, is a fairly meaningless concept in an appraisal context. So before you go to a lot of effort trying to disprove the specified methodology and assumptions, find out if it based on discretionary guidelines or if that's the rule in this instance.

Now to what Species rating is. I'm not sure anyone is quite sure. There was serious consideration to dropping it entirely from the 9th Edition, I guess we'll know in a few weeks when it comes out. Understanding TFM as a replacement cost approach to value, Species is a form of functional depreciation that should reflect fewer benefits than the replacement of another species.... say the peanut butter an jelly tree will only live for 30-40 years but your favorite oak will live to be 300 years... both cost the same to replace with a 24" box... there's a real argument the PBJ tree should not be worth as much so you lower species rating. Longevity is a reasonably objective consideration. Other factors ("lousy amenity tree") may be more subjective, and you need to put yourself in the public's or reasonable person's shoes... will they see or experience a difference in value? That experience may not be the same as your fine tuned expert preferences.

We need a little more data on Location, but in the abstract... I think 100% may be perfectly appropriate for a tree that's scheduled to remain... a street tree, buffer tree, minomal canopy cover tree. I think the thing that may want consideration is the Contribution component. If the trees are on a developable site and this is an initial resource inventory it is reasonable to assume that some of the trees will have to go to allow for roads, utilities, site lines, structure footprints and open or grass space. They may be specific trees or may be a % of cover as yet unspecified. But they are going to go and so contribute 0% to the finished development... it is unreasonable to rate them all at 100%. If on the other hand they are those which will stay maybe they do contribute 100% and Location is 100%. Again, we have to go back to the purpose and use of the appraisal... the question being asked.

About other protocols... I've encountered two recently. One uses "basal area" (actually area at 4.5'), inch for inch, installed cost (by TFM) with NO depreciation for Species, Location or Condition either. Period. This is for street trees. The other uses diameter inch for diameter inch, wholesale and treble damages (which works out the same as installed), again NO depreciation. This is in a watershed, and they also do a sort of cost of cure to include understory, deer fencing, vine supression, erosion control, etc. in addition to larger trees. This seems to be an administrative penalty approach and I don't know if either has been tested in the courts.

Reply to post by Scott Cullen, on March 04, 2000 at 10:43:52:

Thanks Scott, for your thoughtful and authoritative comments. I was actually hoping you would weigh in on this. I need to think about what you've said and comment later, but let's see who else has anything to add. Your comments are helpful, especially that the City has the authority to require whatever they want to, as long as it is consistent through all situations and applicants.

Reply to post by Jan Scow, on March 04, 2000 at 13:19:49:

Scott, the punitive aspect of requiring top percentage species and location factors for remaining trees (from natural range woodland):
Is this, as you understand it, meant to encourage conservation of the native range trees in preference to any others? Speaking from a point of view that values conservation of all the native species which find food and shelter in the native plants, I can see that as a worthy aim. I wonder if a more comprehensive approach to habitat protection is more effective, though. Without some protective measures, the native trees may have little chance against conversion. How best to conserve the natural world?

Reply to post by Mark Goodwin, on March 04, 2000 at 20:17:22:

Mark, I can't offer much reliable comment of rangeland or habitat issue, just outside my experience and expertise. I can guess that the intent might be to encourage conservation, but don't really know about their policy.

In speaking with the parks & watershed people I referenced above it was clear the policies were intended to be both deterrant and restorative. Whether one characterizes a penalty as "punitive" or indicative of value depends on the definition of value and the facts....

Joe cuts down that watershed tree casue it's in his view... worthless to him. The watershed feels differently and assesses full replacement. In a marginal value sense one 30" tree out of 10,000 won't make much functional difference... plant a 3" tree or let the stump resprout and the woodland will restore itself. But the public agency might responsibly consider each tree to have full marginal value as if it were the last one... else everybody goes out and cuts one down... "well it's only one tree."

The appraisal and public policy issues overlap here. Most of our appraisals and our appraisal methodologies focus on single trees on private property where somebody has full fee rights to do what they want with the tree. If we as a society start to encumber those private rights and protect classes of resources - say wetlands or viewsheds - or if we talk about large groups of trees or publically owned resources the scope, the beneficiares and the appropriate methodologies all change.

There were some interesting threads on this a ways back... look for things like "multiple beneficiares" and "scale - scope." If you find a few the rest are in the same time range.

Scott

Reply to post by Jan Scow, on March 04, 2000 at 13:19:49:

Another thing which occurs to me is that if the trees in question are scheduled to remain and so are 100% Location but are more conservation area or habitat trees than landscape amenity trees there may be a logic in 100% Species rating even if it's not a 100% landscape tree (by whatever criteria you might employ). One could argue that species diverisity and all the ecological implications are desireable in the setting. Whether your expert judgment on the particular species role in habitat - native or otherwise - can be applied is another matter. If the policy is all oaks qualify than that may be that.

Reply to post by Scott, on March 05, 2000 at 00:16:12:

A few more details. This is typical southern California urban sprawl. Homes are spreading out into the native lands at an alarming rate, and oaks are dissappearing rapidly. I believe that a more sensible approach to preserving oak resource and habitat would be to put oak woodlands out of bounds for any more development. But there is no way the political will exists to do that. People love having their nice new home built next to (read "in") an oak woodland and they love having a nice oak tree "here and there", but not necessarily in their backyard (read NIMBY). So this particular situation is a remaining parcel in an area which was once an oak woodland. Homes are all around it. There is little real habitat value because the oaks are in a highly disturbed environment and do not connect to any adjacent undisturtbed woodlands. The 4 homes will be built here. The question is how much the developer should be punished for building around these remnants of a once healthy ecosystem.

The City is clearly in a punitive mode, and I'm not sure that I disagree with them. But the problem is that these policies do not slow the tide of urban sprawl. The financial penalties should be used to protect other areas where oak woodland still exists, but I am not convinced that that happens very often.

My questions at the beginning of this strand are not about the bigger picture, however, but about the very essence of tree value, mainly how we put a dollar value on a tree in this "edge" situation. It was an ecological paradise here, years ago. Now it is about to become part of suburban California real estate. The trees (Q. dumosa) are NOT typical, beautiful, stately oaks, although the bugs, birds, and other critters don't mind, and I think they are marvelous shrubs/trees. These trees are now either going to be in someone's small back yard, or they will be GONE. If gone, the developer will pay either my ISA appraisal value, which is based on less than 100% value for species (I almost never rate a species at 100%) or on the Cities appraisal which apparently considers all oaks to be worth 100% species value and 100% location value. I give them the location argument, and it's just stubborness that makes it hard to see the species argument I guess. In the context, it's really just that I'm not used to appraising on an edge where two sets of values apply (wildland/habitat vs. homes/real estate value).


Forgive me for rambling.

Reply to post by Jan, on March 05, 2000 at 07:29:11:

Ramble on... these are important issues.

I'm not sure tree valuation or penalty polices are going to stop urban sprawl. The population pressure is just too overwhelming. I think the point in this narrower context (tree policies rather than land use policies) is to try and save trees within the sprawl and to engender or enforce some observance of tree retention practices.

I think the issue may be more basic than the differece between edge-habitat vs. amenity-landscape-backyard. Tree appraisal should not be about picking comfortable rating factors off a list as if they fit all situations.

The appraisal process starts with defining the appraisal problem, including: the precise definition of value; value to whom; the purpose and use of the appraisal. The Species, Condition and Location FACTORS are not observed facts or characteristics of the tree that are uniform from situation to situation. They are amounts or rates of depreciation which are used to reduce an initial cost (replacment, cure, TFM) indication of value as necessary to reflect defined value to the beneficiary in the defined problem.

Reply to post by Scott, on March 05, 2000 at 22:07:25:

Sorry to jump in late, but I was in the bathtub.
As usual, Scott has a handle on the situation. I do emphasize his point that it all depends on the reason for the appraisal, who wants it, and who is doing it.
I have always had a problem giving anything 100%. Is there a perfect tree? A perfect location? Maybe!!!
On the other hand, there have been times when I have used the replacement cost method without diminishing condition and location.
Very treely,
lew

Reply to post by Scott, on March 05, 2000 at 22:07:25:

Thanks for your comments,Scott. You have made some good points and helped me to keep things in their proper perspective. Not only have I learned a lot from this discussion, but the City Arborist and I have reached some concensus on some of these issues, and I think that we've all learned in the process. This is such a useful forum!

Until next time,

Jan