Trees should have Standing

Forest Tree Trespass

A logger trespassed upon a wooded lot in a rural area for the purpose of obtaining hardwood saw log timber. Trees were felled and marketable logs removed. The resulting stumps and tops remained, many small existing trees were damaged or destroyed, roadways were cut into the wood to winch out the logs and just plain outright destruction took place.

What do we do as arboricultural professionals? Will we let the local extension forester submit a timber value loss and let it go at that or do we attack the issue from a professional standpoint, putting all things into proper place and into focus? I took the tree evaluation approach and used it to the most extreme extent.

Certainly the forest trees in this situation in competition with one another did not rank monetarily with single shade trees which many people see and enjoy. Nevertheless, I determined each tree’s value (which was quite low). Furthermore, I separated the values into residential and woodland. This presented two separate sets of figures. If this site were developed into a residential setting the trees would have more value. Why not be fair in your reasoning and evaluate both circumstances.

The final statements of my evaluation appraisal report were as follows:

“The above values represent trees in place, in their natural habitat prior to any recent cutting. Total woodland tree value, $8,509.”

“If the land were to be developed for home sites, the existing values of these trees would be $16,990.”

Further, I considered cost of cleaning up the resulting wood and brush, removing stumps and hauling away all debris, regrading the damaged land to eliminate ruts and other equipment tracks, and to bring the forest floor back into as near as possible a condition that existed prior to the trespass.

Finally, small indigenous trees were damaged (tops broken, trunks wounded, and roots severed). These trees ranged in size from 1 to 5 inches in diameter. Others were completely destroyed. I placed a value on damage and repair costs.

Thus, I feel that I covered every facet of consideration to trees and the ecological setting. It would be interesting to me to know how this case comes out but not imperative, for I know the courts of the land. They can be most difficult and strange. What I professionally presented was fair and reasonable and the courts understand this.

Construction Encroachment

A builder of fine homes was confronted with a situation that required, by law, low class housing nearby. To the west of some of his better home sites was a tree line of poplar, willow, and related species. The depth of this hedgerow tree line was about 60 feet. The town requested that a sewer line be constructed to supply the new housing development to the west. The builder relented but with the stipulation that only a 20-foot width of tree line be opened up for this construction.

Because of the contractor’s anxiety to push the project and his lack of communication with the town’s engineering consulting firm, the project resulted in disaster. The construction zone turned out to be 56 feet in width. Needless to say, this encroachment caused the builder many sleepless nights because of the new view his home site had of the potential low class houses.

Knowing this would go into litigation, I submitted two reports to the builder, one using our shade tree evaluation guideline and one using replacement costs. Most of the trees averaged 10 inches in diameter. The original trees were 6 to 10 feet apart, having grown in a tight society by natural means. Certainly one can see that we could never replant the scene the same way. Again I submitted two sets of figures. One was approximately $1,500 in evaluation and the other was approximately $31,500 for replacement. I do not regret doing this for it gives our courts something to ponder.

In summary, I realize that our shade tree evaluation formula was designed for shade and ornamental trees, but we need a base from which to work. In today’s detail-demanding society, I found it useful and will continue to use it in many situations.

We must stand our ground when people call the Guide hypothetical. We are the professionals. We have the qualified background to properly use its contents, but only if we know that ‘trees have standing’.

Your professionalism stands out if you defend the tools that you have created. In this case the tool is our shade tree evaluation guideline. But it is just a guideline. You must be the one to Interpret, evaluate, consider all aspects, create a sound, well developed presentation, and prove to the people that you know what you are talking about. This is the professional arborist!