SB

437
.6
.G83

2000

DATSi DUE
:

TN: 423299
Pieces: 1
I LL: ~m.;9509

ii

DCU 06/18/l 2

- ... " ...

- TN: 512690
1
.-

',
(

Pieces:

- FTU 10/0709836
/14
ILL: 12

Demeo. Inc. 38-293

--

-I

Guide
for Plant Appraisal
9th Edition

International Society of Arboriculture

Champaign, Illinois

ISBN: 1--881956-25--3
opyright 2000 by IntemationaJ Society of Arbo1icu1ture
All rights rese1ved. Printed in the nited late of America.
Except as permitted under the nitecl late opyright Act
of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or
distributed in any form or by any means, or tor d in a database or rettievaJ system, without the p1ior written pennis.sion
of the lnternationaJ Society of Arbo1iculture.

4\

w.

The ISA seaJ is a registered trademark.

EditoriaJ Coordinator: Peggy CwTid
Composition by: Amy Reiss
Cover Designer: Laura Adams-Wiggs
Printed by:
Crouse Printing
C hampaign, IL

lnternationaJ Society of Arbmiculture

P.O. Box 3129
Champaign, IL 61826-3129
(2 1 7)~94 11

Web ite: www.isa-arbor.com

email: isa@isa-arbor.com
10987654
1000/CO - 5104

Cove r
The tnmk of a typical mature European beech (Fagus sylvalim)
is being measured al 4.5 ft by Elli Allen to calculate the
cross-sectional area of the trunk. As viewed by l11e camera,

it appears l11e trwik has a mailer diameter farthC'r down;

however, lh<' diameter of the lnmk al right angles to llle
plane of th<' photograph may be sufliciC'ntly smaller such
lhat th<' trunk ci1cumfcrencc at 4.5 ft is maller than any
mcasuremmt lower. (See llle di cussion of tree size measurcmC'nt, pagc 3.5-38 and 44-45.)

AN'{A
Amtucan 1'untry 6r
larwbapc- AsMXUll 1oa

American tu'Sery and LanclsC'ap(' As.so<:ial ion

1250 Eye Street W, uite 500
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 789-2900
American Society of onsulting Arborists
15245 Shady Grove Road, uile l:JO

----

Rockville, MD 20850
(301) 947-0483
American Society of Landscape Architects

636 Eye treet, W

Washington, 0 20001-3736
(202) 898-2444

AIA:A
f\\'IO( lATflt l Al\IN.Art

Ct,..,.l'lAC 10k\Of AMtb.A

Associated Landscape ConLractors of America

150 Elden Street, Suite 270
lle mdon, VA 20170

(703) 736-9666
Association of Consul ting Fo resters of America
732 . Washington S treet,, Suite 4-A
Alexandria, VA 22314

(703) 548-0990

ISA

International Society o f Arboriculture

P.O. Box 3 129
Champaign, lL 6 182&3129
(217) 35f>.94 l l
ational Arborist Association

P.O. Box 1094

Amherst,, ll ()30.'31-1094
(603) 673-3:311

Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9U1 EdWon

AuUlored by Representative to Ule
Council of 1Tee & Landscape Apprai rs
Richard F. Gooding
Gooding's Nursery and Landscaping
herrod ille, Ohio

American Nursery and

Land cape Association
American Society of
onsulting Arborists

James B. Ingram
The F.A. Bartlett 1Tee Expert Co.
Ostenrille, Massachusetts

American Society of
Landscape Architects

James R. Urban
Urban & Associates
Annapolis, Maryland
Lewis B. Bloch
Bloch Con uJting Group
Potomac, Maryland

Associated Landscape
ontractors of America

WtlJjam M. Sleigerwaldt
Forest Land Services
Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Association of Consulting
Fore ters of America

Richard W. I larris, CTLA Chair

University of California
Davis, California

International Society
of Arboricultw-e

Ellis N. Allen
Consulting Arbon t
Mashpee, Massachusetts

National Arborist
Association

Edited, published, and copyrighted by the

lnternalional Society of Arbo1icuJture
inlh Edition

2000

Contents

Acknowledgments

ix

Preface

xi

Chapter 1 Plants Have Value

Chapter 2 Plant Appraisal
The Plant Appraisal Proce
Plant Appraisal Procedures, Field Records,
and Diagnostic Tools
Appraisal Procedures
Field Records
Diagno tic Tool

Chapter 3 Approaches to Value

Cost Approach
Income Approach
Market Approach

Chapter4 Factors in Plant Appraisal

Species
Condition
tructural Integrity
Plant I leaJU1
AnaJysis of Condition Factors
Size
Elliptical ro Sections
l leighl of ~leasuremcnt
Modilications to Tree Size Measurements
Tr('(' Cul OIT Below 4.5 ft (1.4 m)
Location
ilC' Rating
Cont tibulion Rating
Placement Rating
Oetcnnining the Locatio n Facto r

9
11

13
13
15
16
19
21
21
22
25
25
28
28

29
33
35
44
45

47
49
52
52
52
53

54

Chapter 5 Cost Approach to Plant Appraisal

Regional Plant Appraisal Committee
Replacement Cost Method
Steps to Determine Plant Value by the
Replacement Cost Method
Adapting Replacement Co t Method to
Unusual ituations
Replacement ost of Large 1ree Specimens
Replacement Following Extensive 'Iree Lo
Palms
Replacement Co t Method for hrubs,
Hedges, and Vines
Interior Plantings
1hmk Formula Method
Cost of Repair Method
Cost of Cure Method
Debris Removal and Landscape Structure
Restoration
Plant Replacement
Plant Restoration and Establishment
Swnmary of Plant Restoration and
Establishment Me thods

5i
58
00
61

66
66
67
f>8
69
69
70
76
76

78
79
81
87

Chapter 6 Income Approach to Plant Appraisal

8.9

Chapter 7 Market Approach to Plant Appraisal

93

Chapter 8 Appraised Values Should Be Reasonable

99
99

Insights on Market VaJue

Estin1ates of Total Property VaJue
The Contributory Value E timate
Timber Value
Plant VaJue on Easements and Rights-of-Way

Chapter 9 Casualty Claims and Losses

Insurance Coverage
Income-Tax Deductions
onbusiness and Personal Property
Property I Jeld for Production of Income
U1er IRS onsiderations
Definition of Casualty
Damage to 1Tees and Other lx'mdscape Plants
Except ions lo Darnagc Losses
Proof of Loss
Photographs

100
100
102
102
103
103
104
106
106
107
107
108
108
108
109

t
~

R<'al-Estat(' Appraisals
Appraisal !"('('
Amount of Los.s
lmpor1ant Reminder
uggC'St d Procedure for an Apprais<'r
to Follow
udden Los.s
Responsible Party lainL.<;
Direct egotiation or tUement
Arbitration or Mediation
Civil and riminal Damage Clain1s
Double and Treble Damage

Chapter 10 Professional Considerations and Responsibilities

Qualifications
Ethic and Standards of Practice
The Well-Documented Plant Appraisal Report
Conduct As an Expert Witne
Profe ional Liability insurance

109
109
109
110

110
11 O
110
110
111
111
112
113

114
116
117

120
122

Chapter 11 Plant Appraisal Within Easements and

Rights-of-Way

Appendix I Compounding Cost for Replacement Plants

Increase in Value When Compotmded
Annually at Interest Rates Shown
Determining the Compom1ded Cost of
Plants and/or Operations
Appendix II Significant Figures

123

125
126
129
131

Append.ix m Sample Certificates of Appraisal

Short Version
Long Version

135

Literature Cited
Other References

137

135
135

140

List of Figures
1.1 Functional uses of plant materials

2-3

4.1 Increase in trunk area and acljusted trunk area with increasjng diameter

38

4.2 Measuring tree with fairly straight, uptight trunk

45

4.3 Measming trunk of leaning tree or tree on a lope

46

4.4 Measuiing trunk of low-branching tree

47

4.5 Measuring trunk stems of mulLi-stem tree

48

List of Th.bles
2.1 Useful diagnostic equipment

16

4.1 Factors to consider in raLing plant specie and cultivars

26

4.2 Characteristics of woody plants and selected relative importance

of U1eir in1luence on landscape function, site adaptation, and p lant
health care

27

34-35

4.3 Guide to judging plant condWon

4.4 English units; trunk areas and aclju ted trunk ar eas based on diameter

39

4.5 English units; trunk areas and acljusted trnnk areas based on
circumference

40

4.6 Metric units; trunk areas and acljusted trunk areas based on dfameter

41

4.7 Metric uruts; trunk areas and acljusted trunk areas based on
circw11ference
4.8 Trunk diameters at 4.5 ft and near the ground and values required
for linear regression equation
4.9 Suggested functional and aesthetic contribution factors
10.l ompruison of appraisal r eport formats

1.1 Annual intere t rate compounded

42-43
50
53

118-119
126

Worksheets and Samples

Replacement Co t Method

64-65

'Ihmk Fom1ula Method

74-75

Acknowledgments

The Council of Tree and Land cape Apprai ers gratefully acknowledge the thoughtful contributions of
Richard Barrett, verland Park, Kansas; Molly Beck,
Woodinville, Washington; Pat:Iick Bucl<l y, Dousman,
W1SConsin; Ed Butch 1~ Milford, Ohio; Bob ool, Lansing,
Michigan; Peter ox, Markham, Ontaiio; teve Day,
Littleton, olorado; Frank Feather, Albuquerque, New
Mexico; Dr. Bmce Fracdrich, Charlotte, North a.rolina;
Thomas Hanson, Bothell, Washington; Kerry Knorr,
pokane, Washington; haron Lilly, Champaign, Illinois;
John McNeary, harlotle, North Carolina; Sal Pezzino,
South Huntington, New York; Frank SchaJdach, I Iillsdale,
Michigan; Jack iebentha1er, Clearwater, FI01ida; Dr. T.
Davis Sydnor, olumbus, Ohio; Edward 1'ravis, Mobile,
Alabama; and Dr. Ga1y Watson, Lisle, Illinois.
The Council also wi hes to thank Scott ullen of
Stamford, onnecticut, and Karen Doherty of Easthampton, Massachusetts, for their significant contiibutions to the Guide. Many other plant appraisers have
advised on subj cl content through the years. e1tainly,
the Council i grateful to regional groups, standing
plant apprai al committee , and appraisal workshop
pa1ticipants who continue to expand the knowledge
base for the information in the Guide and its readers.
ancy Peckham, Division Secretary for The F.A.
Bartlett 'lfe<' Exp 1t Company, Osterville, Massachusetts, de rves special thanks for her ability to syntheize manuscripts, review note , and organize general
fonnat for the Guide. h<' has worked on Guide editions
for 16 years wiU1 U1c full support of Robert A Bartlett,
Jr., and oth r Bartlett managers in ew England. The
Council wishe to acknowledge the special efforts of

ix

GuidRfor Pl.anJ Appm1<tU

Peggy Currid of the International ociety of Arboriculture staff and freelance copyeclitor Phyllis Picklesimer
for editing the manuscript and helping ideas flow logically, and Vera Hanis, Davis, alifomia, for the illustrations. Adctitionally, the Council would like to thank
Beth Palys, Management Solutions Plus, Inc., RockYille,
Maiyland, for her support through numerous two- and
three-day work e ions.
Special efforts in plant appraisal were also made by
Elik Haupt, past Council chair, who greatly contributed
to the eighth edition and its dissemination. The ninth
edition of the Guide was written with him in mind and
with his high st.andaid befor us.
The Council member representatives gratefully
acknowledge the contributions of ow seven greenindustry executive and their boards of directors.
Without their support, the Guide would not have been
possible.

Preface

People who ar familiar with the valuation of plants

recogniz U1at plants have value beyond U1eir aestl1etic
contributions lo a land cap and that U1eir value can
be asse ed. A p lanl appraiser musl deal wilh a broad
peclrum of p lanl valuations from an individual Lree to
an entity as complex as a wooded resid ntial or recreation area, an industtial park, or an entire city. Planl
valuations arc nol limiled to casualty situations but can
include appraisals for tr e inventories, r al-e tale ttansactions, plant condemnation actions, and insurance
pUipo e.
In 1905, Dr. George E. Stone, al what is now th
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, revised an earlier
fonn ula devised by a University of Michigan professor
for placing a monetary value on "shade and omamental
ttees." Few persons could have envisioned then how
much plant appraisal would change and how complex
it would become dwing U1e rest of the 20th century.
And, when Dr. Ephraim P. Felt, director of lhe Bai.11ett
'Irec Re arch Laborato1ie , and 0 1ville piccr, president of The F.A Brutlett 'Irce Expert Company, revised
Dr. ton 's formuJa in 1938, plant appraisal became
even more complex.
tone' formuJa emphasized tree size, location, and
condition of lh tree. The Felt/Spicer f01mula expanded
tone' fom1ula to include pecies and re idential land
values. A tree' initial value was based on a cross section
of its trunk measwed 4.5 fl (1.5 m) above lhe ground.
Thi value was acljusted by the location, condition,
specie , and land value, each express d as a percentage, to obtain an appraised value. Considerable judgment
was nece ary, but few c1iteria were provided with
which to evaluate each of lhe rating factors.
xi

Plant valuations ore

not limited to casualty
situationsbut con
include appraisals for
tree inventories, reolestote tronsodions,
plant condemnation
odions, and insurance
purposes.

xii

Gui<k for Pta11t .~ppmi.!ol

It was almo t 20 years before the fit t edition of

Shade Tree Evaluation was published in 1957 tluough
the joint efforts of the National Shade 'free Conference
and the ational Arbo1ist Association ( AA). The first
edition was patterned after the Felt/ picer fonnula
except that U1e real-estate rating was dropped, leaving
such considerations to be included as pait of the location rating. The first edition was revised twice before
the American Society of onsuJting Arborists (ASCA)
and the American Association of mserymen, now the
American Nw'Sery and Land cape Association (ANLA),
joined the first two organizations in preparing the
fourth edition, published in 1975. Thi edition was
called A Guide lo the Profe sional Evaluation ofLandscape Trees, Specimen Sluubs and E vergreens.
In 1975, th four organizations already mentioned
and the Associated Landscape Contractors of America
(ALGA) formed the Council of Tree and Landscape
Appraisers ( TLA). They published the fifth edition of
the Guide for Establishing Values of Trees and Other
Plants in 1979. Each of the first ven editions presented
the same way of establishing "basic value" (dollars per
square inch of trunk cross-sectional area) for trees too
large to be replac d in the United States and Canada
Jn 1957, basic value was $5 per in2 ($0. 78 per cm2),
increasing with each edition to $27 per in2 ($4.19 per
cm2) by the tin1e the seventh edition was published in
1988. These editions deSCiibed "Replacement Value" and
"Formula" methods of appraisal, but a mooth transition in tree value from "Replacement" to "Fommla" was
not addre ed. In fac t, in the seventh edition, a 9-in.
(23-<:m) diameter "Replacement" tree was said to have
a value of $44 per in2, and the "Formula" tree was said
to be worth $27 p r in2.
TI1e eighth edition, published in 1992 (now the Guide
for Plant Appraisal), based the "FonnuJa" value of
Iai-ge tree on the "Replaccmenl'' cost plus tJ1e increase
in valu due to U1r increase in tree size above that of
th<' "Replacem nt" tree. TI1e formation of Regional Plant
Appraisal ommitl('(> was recommended to determine
what infom1ation was needed to appraise plants in the
region according to the procedures in the Guide.
Thrsr procedures included the size of the largest
transplantable tree, it co t, th<' cost-per-unit trunk
aiea (fonnula), a specie rating list, and other information that might be necessary for plant valuation.

Pnf11('('

A finther refinem nt of U1e Guide "Formula" acldtl'SS('CI

the rapid incr ease in trunk area and, therefore, the
value of tr e larger than 30 in. (75 cm) in diam lC'r.
The Guide al lowed an apprai er to adj u t for lr<'es
larger than 30 in. (75 cm) in clia.m ter ( ee discussion of
Acljusted 'Ihmk Arca, hapter 4).
In 1992, ilie ouncil published a workbook lo be US('(!
with ilie Guide in plant appraisal training workshop .
In 1995, the Field Reporl Guide for Tnrnk Fonnula
was created to record ob ervations in the field in a fi.lefolder format for easy us and fiJing. In 1997, a Field
Form Report for Cost of Cure was publi hed. Thi
report provides detail d information on appraising and
fmms on which to record observations, r commendations, and appraisal infom1a.tion when extensive eta.mag
has occwTed to large plantings, passive recreational
areas, and landscape structure .
In 1996, th As ociation of onsulting Foresters
joined the ouncil, followed by the American Society
of Land cape Architects in 1997. Both gr oups have
been active in preparing th ninth edition of the GuUle.
In the past veral years, the Council has p nt a ignificant amount of energy id ntifying three approaches
to value: the Cost Approach, the Income Approach,
and the Market Approach. These approaches, coupled with guidance on making appraised values reasonable, arc d scribed in this edition. As might be
expected, the ninth edition shares examples that help
shape and guid the plant appraiser on appropriate
methodologies and l chniquc Lo use when appraising
plants. Aside from the expansion of methods that range
from Cost of Repair and Replacement Cost to
1hmk Formula and Cost of Cure, the Council has
compiled helpful infonnation on profe ionaJ considerations and responsibilities and plant appraisaJ wiiliin
easements and rights-of-way, both of which topics ar
covered in this publication.
All publications of U1e ouncil are published by the
lntemationaJ ociety of Arboriculture (ISA) and are
available from I A and ome of the other Council
organization . T hrough the years, it has been the
Council's intention to pre ent the fundam entals of
appraisal and the proccdtrres necessary to iniplement
reasonable plant valuations. IL hould be recognized, however, that know! dg of the basic mechanics of valuation alon is not what tablishes the cr edibility of a

xiu

In the past several

years, the Council has
spent asignificant
amount of energy
identifying three
approaches to value:
the (05! Approach, the
Income Approach, and
the Market Approach.

xiv

Guidefor Pffml Appra1S!JI

professional plant appraiser. Rather, it is the proficiency

with which the tools and procedure are used. indeed
the judgment of the appraise1; based on careful analysis
of all the factors, is the key to accurate plant appraisal.
As such, the appraiser hould remember that this document is only a guide to that end.

CHAPTER 1

Plants Have Value

Plants are living things ngaged in the mo t profound

creativity in the world. Because of their photosynthetic
proc
, plants a.re
ntial to mo t oth r organisms.
Their beauty, inte rac tion with other organism , and
piritual contdbutions are important to humans, but
these att:Iibutcs are difficult Lo quantify economically.
Whether they o cur na tmally or have b e n introduced,
trees and lands ap plants perfom1 basic engineering,
architectural, and e nvi.ro1UTiental functions (see Figw'e
1.1). Mo t hw11an intere t in plants become tangible
and quantifiable when viewed in tem1S of thes functional benefits. Th practice of plant appraisal and tudies have provid d methods to value plants in monetary
terms. Thus, plant appraisers with the help of this
Guide can proc d in a credible and acceptable manner Lo determine reasonable appraised monetary value
of plants.
Plant appraisals are u ed for various reasons: ettlement for dan1ag or death of plarits Uu'ough arbitration,
insurance claim , or di.r ct payment; loss of property
value for i.ncom tax purposes; real-estate appraisals;
establishing valu of plants that may be damaged during construction, etc. Proactive reasons for appraisals
may include use by land cape architects and d igners
to educate cli nts and justify additional co ts for featuring or saving trees; u e by municipal and p1ivate
entities for an ongoing comprehensive inventory to
establish and justify budget requests for maintenance,
removal , and n w plantings; or to negotiate vaiiances
to zonin g or building codes to help save trees and then
establish valu for the purpo e of bonding trees that
municipalitie and others require to be saved during
constm ti on proj cts. The uses of plant appraisals can
be as divers as plant species tllemselves.

Gu id<' for Plant Appraisal

A. ARCHITECTURAL

t l _Jn

le

SC REENI NG OBJF:CTIONAJ. vn: ws

J
c:RADUAL UNFOLDING
OFA VIEW

SPACE ARTICUW\TORS
PRI VACY C'ONTRC>I,

B. ENGINEERING

AI R CONDITI ON I NG

ACOUSTIC AL CONTllOL

SOFTENING ARClllTt:CTI.TRE

L INE C ALLIGRAPHY

COMPLEMENTING ON ENllANC I NG
AllClllTECTURE

ATTllACTIN(l Ill RDS

OAC' K(; f<()UND

on AN IMA~'I
'"l"YING TOG t,'Tll Ell"
VARIOUS ELEMENTS

BIU NG NATUl<AL t:LEM ENTS

I NTO UlillAN SURROUNDINGS

FIGURE 1.1. Functional US<'S of plant materials (Robinette:> 1968).

Chaptrr I :

l'ia111.~ 1/(11'<'

Volur

D . CLIMATE CONTROL
I. WINO

ONTROL

OllSTllll('TION

DEPL~X'TION

OU I l>ANCE

2. SUN CONTROL

vlt~

_!!IL
RAOIATION

-i I!

OB.'l'T'RUC"TION
dtuly
M... ..on
RADIANT llEAT

HLTRATl()N

3. PRE IPITATION & H UMIDITY

llA IN

4 . TEMP l?: RATU RE

Ill\ HSAI \ 'AIUATIONS

~t::A..""O:"AJ ~

\.'ARlATIONS

5. TOl'OC' LIMATOLOGY & PLANT MATER lALS

"

\..'lN l TAL VARIATI ONS

s
4

Guidr for Pla11t Apprai.!a/

.I

'

,.
,/,

One way the American public has hown that the\

value p lants is by purchasing them. "Gardening and
AU.S. Forest Service other outdoor-related activitie continue their trong
dy sh0wed 1h01 growth and re main America's number-one leisure
stu
activity," ays Bruce Butterfield, Research Director for
real-estate appraisers the National Gardening A ocialion (AAN Todny
estimated that trees 1996). In 1994 and 1995, consumers pent a total of
contributed us much $25.9 billion on their lawns and gardens, which was an
increase of $3.5 billion, or 15.5 percent, over the pre\ias a 27 percent ous year, according to Butte rfield. California's state
increase in dollars for wban fore try sector had sale of at least $1.115 billion
two-thirds wooded in a 12-montll period in the early 1990s (Templeton and
Goldman 1996). Garden television shows continue to
compared to open grow in popularity aero s the United States, fwther
land with no plants. strengthening public interest in plants.
Studies have shown that landscape plants, particularly trees, enhance property value and increase city
assets. Peters' (1971) report in the Journal ofForest1y
indicated tllat on one 7-ac (2.8-ha) tract of land, shade
trees contributed 19 percent, or $57,000, to the total
appraised value of $302,000. A U. . Forest Service
study in Amherst, Massachu e tts, s howed that realestate appraisers estimated that trees contributed as
much as a 27 percent increas in dollars for two-thirds
wooded compared to open land with no plants (Payne
1973).
A more recent tudy on the contribution of landscaping to the price of single-family houses conducted
in Greenville, South Carolina, showed that a house
that obtained an "excellent" rating for the landscape
from a local landscape professional could expect a sales
price 4 to 5 percent higher (d pending on the size of the
lot) than equivalent houses with a "good" landscape
rating. Homes with landscapes rated "fair" or "poor"
could expect a sales price 8 to 10 percent below equivalent homes with good landscape appeal (Ileruy 1994).
A survey by Arbor ational Mo11gage, Inc., revealed
that "84 percent of the real-estate agents feel a house
on a lot with tree would be as much as 20 percent
more salable than a hou e on a lot without trees. In
addition, 62 percent of Uie respondents said the existenc(' of healthy shade tree s trongly influences a
pot('ntial buyer's impr(' ion of a block or neigl1borhood; 60 percent thoug11t healthy hade trees have a
big effect on a potential buyer's fas t inlpre ion of a
property; and 56 percent felt healthy hade IJ'eeS are a

C/wpter 1 ~011/s llni'<' \ 'aim

trong factor in a hom 's alability" (Arbor ational

Mortgage 1993).
ot only do tree and plants contribute monctaiiJy
to the value of prope11y, they also conllibutc to a higher quality of life and ben lit society. Ther e has been an
increased awarcne in the re torative value of plants
in ho pitals, homes for the aged, and nior c nters. ln
such places, many "healing gardens" arc being constructed for cli nts, staff, and visito1 . Urban fore ts
help build tronger commwutie and, in doing o, they
contri bute to lower l evels of domes I i c viol ence
(Sullivan and Kuo 1996). From the medical p 1 pective, re earchcrs have documented that people who
interact with plants r cover mor quickly from everyday stress and mental fatigue (Relf 1996). Another
social re archer found that th sb:onge t indicator of
local re idential satisfaction was the ease of acce to
nature. They al o found that accessibility to naturn
was the most important factor-after the marital
role-in life satisfaction (Relf 1996). Even corporate
Ame1ica is now including landscape considerations in
its philosophy. When asked why they have emphasized
landscaping, busin
owners cite the numerous po itive aspects of tr es and plants (Relf 1996). Landscaping in the work environment
increase employee productivity, morale, and
pride in the workplace
help recruit new employees
attracts cu tomers or new business tenants
can be used as an employee benefit
has a role in creating a corporate image
has value as a marketing tool
Dwyer t al. (1992) tale that "w'ban and community
forests can strongly in.Ou nc the physical/biological environment and mitigate many impacts of urban development by moderating climate, conserving energy, using
carbon dioxide and wat t~ improving air quality, controlling rainfall nrnolJ and flooding, lowering noise levels,
harboring wilcllife, and enl1ancing the attractiveness of
citie ."
'I'rees conllibute to energy conservation because
they help reduce the co t of heating and cooling buildings (see Figure 1.1)." ummertime air temperatures in

Not only do trees

and plants contribute
monetarily to the
value of property,
they also contribute
to ahigher quality
of life and benefit
SO<iety.

Guidefor Pla111 App111l$4/

'

'

ci ties can be as much as 10F wrumer than in urrounding nual areas due to the replacement of soil
and vegetation with concrete, asphalt, and metal"
(Akbari et al. 1992). McPhe1 on and Rowntree's monitoring and computer imulations uggest that a ingle
25-ft (7.6-m) tree can reduce the heating and cooling
costs of a typical residence by to 10 percent, or 10
to $25 per year (McPher on and Rowntree 1993). Even
th o ugh the e numbers do not eem impre ive for
average-sized re idences, commercial properties ertjoy
large cost savings. Heisler (1986) estimates that windbreaks can reduce a typical ho me's space-heating
demand by 5 to 15 percenL Annual pace-heating and
cooling savings from a ingle 25-ft deciduous tree optimally sited near a well-insulated building are estimated
to range nationally from $5 to $50, up to 20 percent."
Simp on (1998) evaluated the regional magnitude of an
urban forest's heating and cooling effects in his Sacra... measurable mento County case study and found "annual cooling
studies are proving savings of approximately 157 GWh ($18.5 million) per
the dired value of year, 12 percent of total air conditioning in the county."
Carbon equestration is another measurable benefit
trees ineveryday life. of trees, important because incr eased greenhouse
gases in the atmo phere have been linked with global
climate change. Studies in Sacramento County, California, s howed that "in net, the urban forest removes
approximately 3.3 tons p r ac (1.2 t/ha) each year, with
an implied value of $3.3 million ($0.55 per tree). Carbon
dioxide reduction by acramento's urban forest offsets
the total an1ount emitted as a byproduct of human conumption by 1.8 percent" (McPherson 1998). In the
Amed can For try Association's Shading Our Cities,
amp on ta.tes, "A fast-growing fores t tree ab orbs up
to 48 pounds of carbon dioxide a year, that adds up to
ten tons per acre of trees-enough to offset the carbon dioxide produced by driving a car 21,000 miles"
(1989, p. 10).
Oll1cr air-quality tudie show major amounts of air
pollutant (parti culate) upta ke by trees (Scott et al.
199 ) and include the miligating effect of their rainfall
intcrcC'ption. It e ms that, as time goes on, more mealu<tblc> Ludie are proving the direct value of trees in
c>veryday life. U ing the principles outlined in this
Guide, a profe ionaJ should be able to anive at fair
and r<'asonable plant appraisal value .

C1111pl<'I" I Plants l la1v V11/11('

As th(' population incr't'ases, the oppo 1t1.mity for accidental or intentional damage or los.5 to land.seal)<.' plants
increase . Having established that plants have valu('
beyond their ae thetic conlli butions, W (' now need to
<'Stablish how lo place a monetary value o n Uicm lx>for('
damage o curs.

CHAPTER2

Plant Appraisal

Most land cap appraisers think of plant appraisal as

it pertain to " torms," "damage," "de ln1ction," and
"failure," and with good reason; in these situations,
plant apprai ers ar mo t often conta led for their
appraisal se1vice . nfortunately, the are the worst
time lo try to tabli h an accurate timale of a
plant' worth. The tr e may be severely damaged or
totally d stroy d. It is difficult lo ass
its form r positive or negative qualitie and how it appeared prior lo
the damaging event. If an entire site has b en dan1agcd
or destroyed, the problem becomes even more difficulL
It is easier and more accurate to evaluate and
appraise a lands ape and its supporting plants before
damage occws. This is pecially critical for such w'ban
for st prope11ies as arboreta, botanical gardens, public
parks, and other site who e total value depends heavily or exclusively upon such natural featur s. An existing plant inventory and appraisal can be important to
have not only in the event of a natural disaster, but
when human heavily damage or destroy plants and
land cape through uch activitie as con truction.
Knowing the value of such features in advance can be
a powerful inc ntive lo protect and preserve them
from such pr dictable harm. An inventory helps to
establi h a basi for compensation that can be Wlitten
into construction documents.
There are other equally valid reasons for perfom1ing
apprai als on a routine basis. Beyond rnaintenanc
records and photo of plants, more and more municipalities and land ap managers are conducting inventories to quantify the contribution that plants make to
the quality of ti~ for communities and large commercial ite and to help them provide for better management. One rompon nt of such inventories is to place a
9

10

Guide/or Plonl AJ1J1m1sa/

'
,.

value on each p lant and on the community of plants as

a whole. The e value may then be used to establish
and justify budget reque ts for maintenance, removals,
and new p lantings.
are of plants, and especially tree , in the landscape
depends o n more than a comm e rcial ite' or municiApproisols help pality's attention to tree . Mo t trees in wtan forests
in the United State are found on privately owned land
managers budget (Cla rk e t al. 1997). The appraisal value of a residential
adequate funds to landscape in the urban environment can also be a conproted the /ondSlope vincing argument for private owners to better manage
their plant resource . Appraisals help managers budget
investment. adequate funds to protect the landscape investment.
There are other reasons for perf01ming appraisals of
plants. Insurance companie may require appraisals on
properties to establish coverage levels. Appraisals may be
needed for tax purposes in the event of a lo . Liability
issues may b ecome s ignificant in the event of irtjury to
persons or property caused by trne failw'C or las.5 of plants
on a site. Tott cases involving a wrongful act, or a failure
to act, may require appraisals as evidence in courts of law.
Pre-existing landscape value can help the plant appraiser
create a strong argument for reasonable assessments.
In the plant appraisal process, the value of individual plants and the whole landscape should be reasonably and closely dependent upon the value of the land
they occupy. A major factor for the plant appraiser to
con ider whe n making an appraisal is the possible
need to ascertain ome estimate of a property's total
may require assistance from qualified
value. Th.is proc
real-c tate profe ional . A numb r of research studies
have s hown that plants and other landscape features
contribute s ub tantially to both asse ed value and
elling pric of a prope1ty and have quantified the percentage of tile value added to property by attractive
landscaping. Th potential for plant appraisers to offer
appraisal civices for this pmpo is substantial.
Just as p ople may appraise the value of items such
as je welry, furs, antiques, and other valuable assets, it
i wi e to have a cwTent landscap e valuation done.
The e appraisals hould be updated on a regular basis
because plant factor (i.e., Size, Species, Condition,
and Location) arc dynan'lic and will change, and plant
value(s) can c ith r inc rease or decrease over time.
Although the proactive approach represents the
ideal case, it is not always the realistic one. Sudden and

Clwpter 2: Plant Amnuislll

II

unexprcted disast r , both natmal and humanmadC',

do occur. When they do, they require Lhe profe ional
appraisal exp rtise of exp 1ienc d plant appraiser on
an emergency basis. l lowever, when apprai als arr
perfonned ahead of Lime through an inventory, p oplr
will be ducated to tmclerstand that plant can have
sub tantial valu and that il is be t e lablished b fore
disaster st:Iik . The Guide for Plant Appmisal oullin s
the factors to consider when appraisals ar done and
the various appraisal methodologies and technique . It
is designed to help the plant appraiser learn about
accepted procedures, ethic , and appraisal trategie .

The appraisal proc

can be defmed as the act, mannc1~
or technique of conducting U1e teps of an app1aisal
meiliod. ln c hoo ing an app1ai al method, the plant
appraiser houJd y tematically look at the appraisal
situation and lh assigmnent. Every appraisal is different, and the appraiS('r hould select the most reasonable
approache .
Thorough do ume ntation i c ritical during th e
app1aisal pro e . Do not rely on memory. ll is
ntial
to keep a mnning log of ve1y appraisal case. Document
all phone calls and personal conve1sations, and maintain
a record o f all con-espondence. A sugge ted checklist
might include one or more of the following points.
Obt.ain pertinent information at first contact.

Record the date and time of fust contact.

Why were you called? Where has the case come
from? Was lh case referTed by another client?
What is your pro peclive client thinking today,
and what outcome doe he or she want to achieve?
ls the re a po ible conllict of interest?
ame, addre , e-mail address, and phone number
of calle1: If th caller is a representative of a company,
get the full name of the firm and the caller's title.
Name, adcl1 , and phone number of any insurance
companie involved.
Wul the appraisal be for an inventory/management
plan, in urance, the IRS, or litigation?
'lry lo delennine the cause, type, and magnitude
of the apptaisaJ.

The Plant
Appraisal
Process

12

Guidef or Pla111 Ap11roisa/

.t

Discuss fees and establish if you will be paid on

an hourly, a per diem, or a flat rate.
Who will pay tJ1e fee? If there is no award, what
is the client's obligation?
Outline exacUy the type of assignment that is
requested. Indicate whether an appraisal will be
furnished and whether you are willing to serve as
a witness in cowt.
Be prepared to e tablish your competence.
Provide a good reswne and/or a list of cases with
which you have b en involved.
Obtain written authorization to proceed.
Establish a background o n the case before the
site is visi ted .
Speak with the owner of U1e appraised plants.
Learn the reason for appraisal (value of the plants
or landscape, weather, vandalism, vehicle, insect,
disease, fire, poUution, environmental change, etc.).
Learn the history of the ituation.
Are "before" and "after" photos available (if you
are doing a dan1age appraisal)?
Identify other appraisers, consulting experts,
and/or expert witne es who will be involved.
Are the prop rty boundaries established by an
accw'ate and recent wvey?
Inspect the site.
Obtain the owner's penni ion and visit the site
as oon as po ible before conditions Call change.
ote tl1e date and location of the appraisal.
Be thorough so U1at a return trip will not be
necessary.
Record the time and date of the inspection.
Allow ufficient time for thorough inspection.
Prepar a ketch howing the location of plants and
their relation to other elements of property. Be sure
U1e sketch is drawn proportionately and the north
arrow is s hown. Make note about the appraised
plants, th ir vaticty, their condition, and the significance of the location directly on U1e ketch. Indicate
views of any s uppo11ing photographs. (Be careful
of using "scale" language if you are notasrnveyor.)

13

C7wptcr .!: Plont Ap111u isol

Check the il for any wuque ituation and~ ature , such as utilitie , soil conditions, and trnflic
or wning con ms.
Delennine wheth r th re ar any unusual factors
involving acce to th il and the appraised
plants' location.
Alway tak photographs with an adequate camera.
Instant cam ras work well if olor film is used;
their advantage is that you wi11 lrnow inun diately
if you hav a suitable pholo. However, the film has
a low xposurC' spe d, and it can b exp nsive,
pruticularly if enlargem nts ar n c
ary.
lnstamatic cameras are only mruginaUy effective.
Photographic quality is ofL n too poor for enlargement. Frequ nUy, conditions for U1 ir use ar poor.
You may want Lo take photographs at the wrong
time of day, th weaU1er may be unsatisfactory,
and b cau tr s are oflen involved, you may
encount r r due d lighting as a re ult of hade.
The usuall y prefen- d cameras are 35 mm. It is
helpful Lo have a lens that CM focus on mall
details, plus a wide-angle lens. Use a film with
enough p d o that good pictures can be taken
even when light is poor.
Digital cam ras offer a supe1ior meMs of recordkeeping bccaus pictwes CM be reviewed on ite
and s 1 c t d Lo depict accwate details of the case.
The pictwes can then be downloaded in your
computer y Lem and copied in yotu- r port.
Yid olap cam ras are becoming more popular
in courts. Judges and juries respond well to expe1t
testimony if th video is cleru and professionally
sholon ite.

Appraisal Procedures
The m U1ods recomm nded for detennining the monetary value of plants have been prepared by the Council of
'Irce and Land cape Appraisers (CTLA). The appraisal
process is a sy Lematic procedure that encompasses
analysis, data ollcction, and the application ofmethod(s)
to de1ivc reasonabl onclusions and recommendations.
A competent plant appraiser must have a broad background in plMt trn tw , maintenance, and health; be

Plant

Appraisal
Procedures,
Field Records,

and Diagnostic
Tools

s
4

14

Guide for Plant Appmisa/

.I
.1

able to use the approp1iate diagnostic tools and metll<Xb;

be Jrnowledgeable about appraisal procedures; cl<'arly
record findings and conclusions; and be able to \'aliclate
appraisals.
In some situations, a brief examination may be all
that is necessary. In the e ituations, the factors affecting appraisal shouJd be determined and a b1ief report
... document limiting submitted ( ee Chapter 4). The appraiser hould docudrcumstonces that may ment limiting circumstances that may inhibit a thorinhibit a thorough ough investigation.
In any investigation to determine plant value, a sysinvestigation. tematic procedure i e sential. An appraiser ancVor
ctiagnostician houJd exan1ine the canopy, including
foliage size and textwe, length of twig growth, and the
trwlk and roots (particularly the root collar) of a plant
to detennine vigor, health, and stability. The color, size,
and texture of foliage refl ect that season' weather
conditions and other environmental factors, such as
soil type, structure, fertility, and moisture adequacy.
The presence of insects, disease , deadwood, decay, or
cultural problems may indicate the stresses that a
plant has experienced. Plant inspection and maintenance records, history, and photographs may be useful.
In ome ituation , an increm ent core extracted
from the trunk may approxinlate tree age and a good
history of the tree's growth rate. Examination of the
growth tings may al o provide reasonably accurate
inf01111ation on previous climatic conctitions, pruning,
construction activity, and other site characte1istics.
This information can be particularly important in
forensic te timony. A reduction or increase in growth
in a particular annual ring, combined with recorded
weath r data or a record of site activity, can be supporting evidence of an environmental or hwnan cause
of overabundant growth, poor growth, pests, disease,
iajwy, or cuJturaJ problems.
Plant health can oft n be traced to the root environment. The roof zone may be the most difficult and
overlooked area of diagnosis. Healthy, vigorous plants
do not seem to be affected to the same degree as plants
under tre .
Occasionally, aspects of plants or other landscape
rvidence are no longer pre enL In a situation where
only the stump remains, the tree's vigor may be determined by xamining the annual tings of the stump or
acljaccnl tre of U1e same sp cies and size.

Clw11trr .!: l>t.anl Appmisol

In

A frequently overlooked asp ct of plant cliagnosi

involve quC' tioning the propC'rty ownC'r about lhC'
plant's history. eighbors and local officials also ran be
a sourr of valuable information. A pr <'asualty photograph of the plant can be in1portant in detemlining lhe
\'alue of plants that have been lo l. 0th r forC'nsir
inve tigation tactics can be mployed lo h Ip determine reasonable fmdings.
Procedw for the valuation of landscap plants may
require the appraiser lo rate Condition and Location
factor . These ratings are given a rang of pC'rcenLages.
A negative (minus) rating can be given if a tree should
be removed because it is hazardous or make a nC'gative contribution Lo the site. A negative value would
equal th co l o f removal and ile cleanup minus the
tree's wood-fib r (timber and firewood) value.

Field Records
Taking accurate field notes and pholograpl is important
for a profe io nal plant appraisal. Keep in mind that all
field notes and other tangible inf01mation can be subpoenaed if a cas go to litigation. Date ;md identify
photographs to reference the iluation or condition
that they represent. Never erase field note ; draw a line
through the error and write cotTect inf01maUon next to
the original language. By keeping records in this way, the
appraiser docs not create doubt in the mind of the reader.
The Field R eport Guide for 1hmk Formula p repared by TLA is particularly useful for dete1mining
'Ihmk Formula value. Steps in the appraisal process
are given in a sequence. pace is provid d for ketches
and photographs, and h Ip in recording specific data for
Condition and Location factors is given. The Field
Report Fonn is p1inled in a manila file formal for an
appraiser' convenience in filing and easy reference.
The Field Form Rep01t for Cost of Cure folder, also
prepared by the TLA, is u eful in the apprai al
procC' . It provides space for sketche and p hotographs, and the center ection aids the appraiser in
appraising plant material and t he compounding of
interC' t l o compen ate for years to parity. The back
page includ<?s a table of interest rates and exan1ples of
how to ligure the compounding process.
To ordC'r lhC'sc folde1 and other consulUng material,
conlact any of the TLA organizations li led at the
beginning of this Guide.

... field notes

and other tangible
information can be
subpoenaed if acase
goes to litigation.

'

'

16

Guide for P!a111 Appm ill/

Diagnostic Tools
In diagno ing the condition of a plant, careful examination of the leave , t\vigs, branche , trunk, root collar,
and roots can be he Ipful. Tools that may be used in
diagnosing plant conditions a.r hovm in Table 2.1. In
many cases, an appra iser need only a hand Jen .
pocket lrnife, soil prob , trowel, hovel, and pruner. In
the selection and use of tools and equipment, perhaps
the most important cons idera tion i the appraiser's
familiarity with the item and it.s u e. Selection should
be based on the needs of the particular ituation.

TABLE 2.1. Useful diagnostic equipment.

For recording
Clipboard
Compass
Distance meter
Engineer 's pocket scale
Hard hat
Laptop fie ld computer
Photography equipment
Instant/instamatic camera
35-m.m camera
Digital camera
Video camera
Pencils wiU1out erasers
Field rcpo1t forms
Tape r corder
For measuring plant size
Diam ter tap<' measure
lleight meter (clinometer)
Trunk calipers
Biltmore tick
Ilyp ometer
For collecting and examining
specimens
Glassine bag
Labels
Micro cope
Paper bag
Vials for ins0ct.s

For diagnosing tree problems

Battery-operated chill and bit
Binoculars
Bolt cutters
Chisel gouge
limbing gear (rope, saddle)
Disinfectant for pmning tools
Entrenching tool
lland len
Ice pick
Increment borer
Mallet
Pole p1uner
Pmning knife
Pnming s hears (side by side)
Resistograph
higometer
hovel, spade
mall handsaw
Trowel
For diagnosing soil problems
Gas dete tor
Glass jru o r paper bags
Penetrometcr (soil compaction
tester)
pII meter
oil auger~ profile tube
oil moisture meter
Ten iometer

C/11111/<'r 2: Plant A/}]JITI isa/

Even though a trowel, hovel, and compass ar simple to use, training and expcli nee ar nece ' at)' lo
effectively inve Ligate and sample the plant( ) lo b<'
appraised. veral cliagno tic tool require' considerable practice to de clop proficien y in thC'ir US<'. Wh n
a progno i or determination of the condition of a
plant howing symptoms of decline is requin:-d, more
ophi ticated in trument may be employed. uch
instrument may include an increment bor<'r, a pll
meter, or a gas detector. Other useful instrumC'nts
include a higom eter, which measw'e the electrical
re istance of ti ue to direct cwTent; a Re i tograph,
which create a pem1anent record by dlilling a 3-mm
hole in wood and graphing the profil of the amount of
sound wood on a waterproof wax paper printout; and
an Arborsonic D cay Detector, which use ultrasound
to detect decay in wood. The higomcter, for instance,
i de igned to differentiate between healthy, di colored, and d cayed wood, and a cavity, as weJJ as to
indicate relative tree vigor. Even after you are thoroughly fantiliar with U1ese in truments, ke p in mind
that they provid relative information and that the
information must be interpreted carefully.
A number of horticultural and forestry supply companies carry tools and equipment designed for diagnostic work. In Ll1c valuation of a plant, certain equipment
is useful in del nnining the size of the p lant, analyzing
its condition, r cording its location, and obtaining supporting inf01mation.

17

... [ifl5fruments]
provide re/olive
information, and
that information
must be interpreted
carefully.

4
.(

.<
2

CHAPTERS

Approaches to Value

Traditionally, plants and landscapes are con idered

part of real estate. Real estate is defined as the physical
land and appmtenan s affixed to the land--0r land
and all lhe featm s that are a natmal part of the land,
as well as the featur that people attach to it, u h as
buildings, tre , shrubs and yard improvements. Real
property is much like real estate, but real property
includes all inter Ls, b nefilS, and rights inherent in
the ownership of physical real tate. A right or interest in ownership i also referr d to as an estate. In
most ca e , plant apprru e rs consult on situations
involving a paiticular parcel of real estate and the contributory value of plants and other yard improvements.
An apprai al is an unbias d stimate of the nature,
quality, value, or utility of an interest or an aspect of
real estate. Simply, Lhe pwpose of an appraisal is lhe
stated scope of an appraisal assignment, that is, to estimate a defined valu of any real property intere t. The
purpo of the appraisal is defined by the client's needs
or questions. U th client's questions are understood,
the purpose of an assignment can also be cleaily stated.
When an timat of value is required in an appraisal,
the type of valu ought must be defined at the outset.
Appraisers can be asked by a pro pective client to estimate many types of value. Valuation, for example, can
include the pro
of e timating market value, insurable val ue, inv Lment value, going-concern value,
busines.5 valu , assessed value, or any other type of value
in an identified intere l as of a specified date.
Although many types of value exist, the most common
valuation assignments for U1e plant appraiser involve
estimating Lhe contributory value of p lants and landscapes from an ass t standpoint or plants damaged by
some occurrenc . Fire, accident, construction ir\jury,
19

The purpose of the

appraisal is defined
by the client's needs
or questions.

20

Guidefor Pla111 AJIP'IUS!ll

4
,(
,(

negligence, tre pass, eminent domain, and casualt~

loss are just ome of the r asons that plant appraiser.,
are caJled in for con ultation after damage ha
occwTed. Estimates of vaJue hould closely follov. traditional appraisal practice. Plant are part of the
client's real estate. A plant appraiser may follow mon
traditional appraisaJ principles and accepted appraisal
practices when detennining plant vaJues.
In appraisal theory, the vaJuation proces.5 is used to
develop a well-suppo1ted timate of a defined value.
The vaJuation proce begins when an appraiser perfonns a needs asse ment for the appraisal and encb
with a conclusion to the client ( ee The Plant Appraisal
Process, Chapter 2). Each reaJ property is unique, and
many type of value can be estimated for a single
property. The most common appraisaJ assignment is
performed to estimate market vaJue; the valuation
process contains all U1e steps appropriate to this type
of assignment. The model also provides the fran1ework for estimating any other defined vaJue. Realestate apprai ers estimate property vaJue by applying
specific appraisal procedures that reflect three distinct
methods for anaJyzing data The three accepted methods
are the Cost, the Income, and the Market Approaches
to value. One or more approach es are used in determining all value e tirnates. The approaches utilized
depend on th type of property, use and purpose of the
appraisal, and the quality and quantity of information
available for anaJysis.
In some cases, a decision must be made behveen
plant vaJuation and timber income potential. The income
approach may be used to estimate the vaJue of trees as
fore t products. An example could be the los.s of a few
tree aJong a property line of a 5-ac (12-ha) or larger
rural property. Regardless of Jand use, the placement
rating of tree remote from a home site may be so low
as to caus for st product values to exceed landscape
value. In this case, the appraiser must first detemline
the volum and quality of merchantable wood in the
lo . Then the value of wood products in the marketplace must be e timated. The net value, or stumpage,
is e timated by ubtracting a reasonable co t of production from wood-fiber selling value. An appraiser
houlcl have adequate training in forest vaJuation pracUces b fore placing vaJue on trees for stumpage.

21

Chapter .J: AwmMlus to Valur

In real-estate appraisal, the Cost Approach is based

on the premi that the value of a property can be
derived by addin g U1e e timated land value to thr cturent co t of con tructing a reproduction or replacement for th improvement . Then th amount of
depreciation- that is, all deterioration and ob ole cence in the improvem nts-is ubtracted. Application
of the co t approach to plant appraisals is quite common and has b en encouraged by past ditions of the
Guide. It is the assumption in this approach that the
cost to repair or replac plants and landscape items
(les.s depreciation) for Condition and po ibly Location and Specie can be added to the land value in
order to arrive at th total prope1ty value. D preciation
in plants may include overplanting ( uperadequacy).
This is perhaps the mo t widely used approach and
has direct applicability to many plant appraisal assignments. When damage to landscapes oc ur, and the
materials can b easily repaired or replaced, co tapproach methods are well suited for an estin1ate of
value. In mo t cases, landscape professional are the
most qualified individuals to provide accurate repair
or replacement co ls ror trees, shrubs, sptinkling systems, retaining walls, and the like. Because co t data are
readily available, the approach is usually reasonable
and appropriate for mo l situations.
The Cost Approach provides an indication of value
by adding the land value to the depreciated value of
improvements. Th plant appraiser's function is to provide the value of the "improvements," or the complimentary value of the plant , trees, and landscape
features to the value equation. In most cases, cost
infom1ation i dir ctly available and provides one indication of value. The type of "cost" information commonly applied for plant and landscape appraisal may
include Re pl a ceme n t Co s t , Trunk Formula
Method, Cost of Repair, and Cost of Cure.

Cost
Approach

The Income Approach is used to appraise incomeproducing prop rty. This approach may have limited
use and applications for the plant appraiser, yet it is
in1portant to mention and understand its theory and
potential in som situations. The Income Approach
measure th pre ent value of the future benefits of

Income
Approach

22

Guide fur Fta,.1

~pprallUt

4
,(

property ownership. A property's income stream and

resaJe value are capitalized into a present value. Th"
basis for the Income Approach is one fonnula

,(

Annual Incom e .;- Rate of Return =Value

An inve tor in an apartment building, for example.
anticipates an acceptable r eturn on the inve tment
(income stream), as we ll as a re turn of the investment
( resale value). The specific data that an appraiser
investigates for this approach might include the property's
gross income, expected operating expenses, the duration of the investment, and the anticipated resale value
of the building. After income and expenses are estimated, the net income is converted into present value
through capitalization or discounting. The rates used
for discounting are derived from acceptable rates of
return for similar prope rties. An accountant or knowledgeable real-est.ate appraiser would be helpful in collecting this information.
As an example, assume that an investment property
has a net annual income of $10,000 after all expenses;
that is, an annual rent or the like, and the life of the
annual income appears to be for an extended period
(in perpetuity). Assuming a 10 p e rcent rate of return,
the value of our income property is as follows:

Annual Income .;- Rate of Re turn

or
$10,000 .;- .10 =$100,000

= Value

The plant appraiser may not often be involved with

income-producing property, but there are situations
wh r e th e incom e approach may be applicable.
Nurse ries, Christmas tree farms, orchards, and similar
business valuations are examples. Chapter 6 provides
examples and de tails on how the income approach
may be use d by the plant appraiser in special situation . De pite its limite d use, the p lant appraiser
hould be aware of the fundame ntals of the Income
Approa ch and know when its use is appropriate.

Market

Approach

The third m e thod used in appraisal practice i the

Market A pproach. This technique relies on property
sales; U1at is, comparing plices of comparable propertie in order to e timate another property's value. It is
also commonly referred to as the Sales Comparison

Clwpter 3: Approoch<'s to Val1w

Approach. Iler , the appraiser produces a value indication by compruing the ubjcct prop rty with imilar
propertie . Because two propertie ru never xa Uy
alike, adjustments ar appli d to the sal to reflect
difference b twe n the market information and the
subject property. After adjustments, the value indication falls within a narrow range of the el Led market
transactions. In most situations, the Market Approach
is held by the cowts to be the mo t reliable indicator
of property value. Evidence, in the form of market
dat:a, is a convincing indication of value.
Nearly all plant appraisers have some expetience
with the Market Approach. Everyday purchas s of
homes and real property require appraisals for loans
and mortgages. This is the mo t widely us d approach
in real-estate appraisal, and it has direct application
for the plant appraiser. Because plants and landscapes
have value, market infom1ation (property sales) can
be used to extract the contributory value of plants and
landscapes. hapter 7 provid s the plant appraiser
with fundamental on u ing market information for
valuation assignments.
Traditional r a l-estate apprai al relies on three
accepted techniqu s to derive value. The Cost, the
Income, and the Market Approaches are the foundation of the valualion profession. The plwt appraiser
may want to cons ider these three approaches for
some assignment. TLA s tresses, however, that the
Market Approach should be coordinated with qualified, licensed real-estate appraisers. Analysis of realestate sales is complex and requires training and
experience beyond U1 cope of most plant appraisers.

23

Evidence, in the form

of market data, is a
convindng indication
of value.

I
4'.

.f
.(

CHAPTER4

Factors in Plant Appraisal

Fow ptimary factors help determine the value of landscape plants: Species, Condition, Size, and Location. These factors ar essential con id rations when
appraising the value of a plant using Replacement,
Tnmk Formula, Co t of Repair, Co t of Cure, and
other appraisal m ethod . Size i determined by measurement. The o ther three factot are subjective, and
each is expre ed as a percentage determined by the
plant appraiser r lative to what would b considered a
"high-quality" pe in1en.

An almost unlimited mm1ber of plant species and cultivars grow in landscapes, fields, and woodlands where
people live, work, and pl ay. Even within a species,
individuals and cultivars have wide ranges of climatic
adaptability, growth charactetistics, soil adaptability,
and tolerances (Tabl 4.1 and Table 4.2).
The Species r ating often vari es geographically,
depending on th
pecie ' relationship with its environment. A charactetistic of asp cie may be an asset
in part of a region and a liability in another pai.t of the
same region. Plants that grow poorly in one area due lo
alkaline soil may grow well nearby in a more acid soil.
A 100 perc nt Species rating could be given lo an indigenous, native plant tolerant o f a site's environment.
Lists of tree species with their rating.5 were included in
01e Guide p1ior to its third edition (1975). The lists, however, were not considered detailed enough to represent
the value of pcC'ie in different ecological ai.eas, even
wiOlin the san1e region. Experiment stations in a number
of states and provinces have lists of recommended trees
and hrubs that can help in rating a particular species
or cultivai.. international Society of Arboriculture (ISA)
2.5

Species

A 100 percent Species

rating could be given
to an indigenous,
native plant tolerant
of asite's environment.

Guidi'for Pla111 Appra

26

4
,(

,I

TABLE 4.1. Factors to consider in rating plant specie and cultivars.

Climate adaptability
1. Cold hardiness
2. Frost tolerance
3. Drought tolerance
4. Storms, resistance to ice,
snow, wind

S oil adaptability
1. Structure and texture
2. Drainage
3. Moisture deficiencies or
exce es
4. Aciclity and alkalinity
5. utritional deficiencies or
excesses

Growth characteristics
1. Tolerance of difficult sites
2. Vigor
3. Structural strength
4. Life expectancy
5. Pruning requirements

R esistance or tolerance
l . Diseases
2. Insects
3. Air pollution
( ee regional rating lists if
available.)

chapters, or other regional organizations, also have

compiled lists of recommended trees or have tree-rating
lists tha t ar available to their members. These ratings
should be based on Species characteristics, without
regard to plant Condition or Location factors.
There may be s itua tions in which one or more
species may be the only species that will swvive or do
w ell in a particular environmen t. Examples include
soils with extreme pH; oils that are extremely wet,
poorly drained, or saline; and areas in which strong
winds or dense shade is prevalent. An appraiser would
be jus tifi e d in these ins tances in giving a higher
Spe cies rating than would be considered under the
more normal conditions on which the species was
rated for the region. For example, Morus alba, a fruitle mulben y, rat d 20--00 in Ohio (Sydnor et al. 1997),
could be ra ted more than 60 in another area if the
pccie wer only one of a few that could grow in a
particularly difficult micro ite.
Although the co ts of transplantable- ized trees seldom vary as much as U1eir Species rating.s, most of the
peci s with lower rating.s often have characteristics
wh n they are young that are of less value, or even negative value, when they are older. Some characteristics of
uch pcci arc rapid growth rate, higher transplanting

Owpter4: Factors in Plant Appr(lisal

27

survival, cold hardines , and di ase re i lance. AJl

these consideration ar helpful whe n e mploying o t
of Repair, Cost of Cure, and lhe dilierent
t appraisal
methods.
TABLE 4.2. hara teris tic.s of woody plants and ugg led r !a live
importance of their inllu nee on lands ap function, ite adaptation,
and plant care (Hanis et al. 1999).
Function
Plant
characteristics

Architectural
and engineeting

Adaptation
limate and
hwnan comfo1t
lo site

Plant
care

Growth habits for

trees, shrubs, vines
Mature heigh l
and pread
Form
Growth rate
Branching
Wood t.rengti1
Rooting

***
**
*
**
**
**

***
**

**
**

***
*
*

*
***

Plant features
Leaves
Thoms
Flowers
Fruit
Bark
Temperalur
Drought
Wtnd
Light

****

Air
Pe ts

Fire

**

***
**
**
*
***
***
**
*
**

Environmental tolerances

Soil

**
*
*
*
*
**

****

Range: = major innuence; no = little or no influence

****
**
**
*
***
**
***

**

**
**
**
**
**
*
***
**

~
~

e
~
;;;;)

4'.:
.6
,(

21

Guide for Pfn11t Appru

28

Condition

Trees posing ummsonabt_e risks lwuld not be appmisai

for amenity monetmy value: Renwval hould be rrromm ended. A separate hazard tree evaluation or tree
structure evaluation rnay be required for Ire~ in
poor condition. Hazard trees may lzat1efirc1rood
valu e, or a Lree 1nay be important to wildlife a11d
could be kept if the tree does not stand near a high
use target, such as a sidewalk, driveway, or home.

(Matheny and Clark 1994).

The Condition of a plant is determined by evaluat
ing its present structural integrity and state of health
and, if nece sary, its tructure and health prior to
being destroyed or damaged. The many factors involved
The many (odors in assessing the Condition of a plant require the kill
involved in assessing of a qualified p lant appraiser. Interview with the property owner to ascertain the plant's history and sympthe Condition of a toms seen in other seasons may be important. Prior
plant require the skill photographs and tree maintenance history should be
of aqualified plant invesligated by the plant appraiser.
Even though a plant may appear to be healthy and
appraiser. have a strong structure, the species may be known to
be sho rt-lived, have brittle branches and/or branch
attachments, be subject to erious insect or disease
problems that persist in the area, not be hardy to the
lowest temperature on record, or be susceptible to
another species-related malady. The Condition rating
sho uld not be adju ted to reflect such possibilities.
These charactelistics are Species rating concerns. A
plant's existing condition is the mo treasonable gauge
for determining the Condition rating.

Structural Integrity
A tr e that appears lo be healthy may have structural
problem that could affect its C ondition rating. A
of structwaJ integrity is e enliaJ for a
high degr
large tree located where its failur could cause personal
iajury or prop rty damage. Thorough exanlination of a
tree is a primary roncem for an appraiser. It may be
advisable to climb the tI e and/or peiform a root collar
evaluation through excavation, if necessary, for a closer
diagno tic in pection.
When checking the structural integiity of a large
trrc, thC' appraiser hould first examine it for root conditions and stability; trunk oundness, decay, or cavities;
thrn branch conditions, oundness, and attachment.

Cllapter4: Factors i n Plo nt A111nni,~ol

Potential hazards in tr e may be indicated by rai 'N I

soil on one id o f the trunk, broken or dead roots, a
leaning tnmk, o nks of wood, decaying fungi, codominant stem , included bark, splil bran ch atlachmr nts,
several branche ari ing clo togelher on thr trnnk
(excepl for central leade r tr s s uch as co nil! rs), and
dead limb (Matheny and lark 1994).
If a tree prob lem cannot be corrected , or U1e lrer is
not worth saving, its r moval sho uld b rccomrn ndr d.
A tree lo be re moved may have a negaliv value if its
timber or fir wood value is less than the removal and
cleanup co ts.
There may b e occasions when a tree's problems can
be corrected, and the tree could po e le of a risk if
the Condition( ) can be con'ectcd. In Lhis situation, rate
the tree as if U1 Condition had been co1Tected; then
ubtracl the e timated co t of con-ective work from its
final value to o blain the apprais d value o f the tree
(see Co t of Repair M thod, Chapte r 5). A disclain1er
hould accompany the value, pecify ing thal corrective measures hall be taken by the c lienl to improve
the tree's condition.
Although il may nol be considered hazardous al present, a Lre could have a poor gene tic struclure thal
would be vulnerabl Lo dan1age in a sev re storm. Such
a tree would be give n a lower Condition rating than a
tree wiUl a stronger stru cture. If present, any of these
Conditions may be only of minor concern. The appraiser
must consider st:ruclurc in relation to a potential LargeL
Poor structure o f a tree in a woodland site without a trail
sy tem would not be as serious as in a high-traffic area.

Plant Health
In analyzing plant healili, an appraiser m ust be fa miliar
with the characteristics of a common plant of the pecies
or cultivar be ing apprai ed, its mature size, leaf and
bud size and color, hoot growth, and tree Lructure.
The apprai e r ho uld ob erve these aspects of the
who! plant and note plant healUl and obvious defects.
The gen ral healili and vigor of a plant can be evaluated
by the annual s hoot growth from preceding years.
Progre ively le growth for each of Lhe past several
years and weak foliage can indicate stress or a dete1iorating condition, C' pccially in trees.
omc symptoms of a planl in poor condition are
leaf di coloration, a bnorma l leaf s ize, s hortened

--

30

Guidefor Plant A11/l111iSal

4
.I
f

Proving chemicol
trespass is ohen
difficuh because
evidence is seldom
dear.

intemodes, decay, clie back, insect frass, disfigured

stem or roots, broken roots, and fungal conks. AS)-1llptom may have one cause or a combination of causes.
Be familiar with the signs of the more common causal
agents in the region and know their anticipated effect.s
on the growth or life exp ctancy of the plant. The seriousness of a symptom and its ultimate effect on a
plant's health can only be d termined and described when
the problem is identified. Identifying and describing
the cause of a symptom is impo rtant in rating a plant's
Condition and strengthening the validity of the plant's
appraised value.
A plant's well-being can be e1iously affected by diseases caused by biotic agents, noninfectious disorders
caused by a biotic agents, and by clirect irtjwy. Diseases
and noninfectious disorders may result from continued irritation or association with a causal agent and
may involve abnormal plant responses and observable
symptoms. Irtjuries, on the other hand, may occur during a sho1t time span and may be accidental, intentional,
or caused by maintenance prac tices.
Damages from chemicaJs, s uch as herbicides, pesticid s, air pollutants, or fertilizers, could be termed an
i.ajury or a noninfectious disorde1; depending upon how
quickly the damage becomes apparent. Plant response
depends on th e chemical, the amount that was
appli d, the time it was applied, the weather, the sensitivity of the plant, and the health of the plant at the time.
hemical tr spass may occur if a chemical (such as
home heating fue~ p ticide, fertilizer, or soil amendment) is misapplied, either accidentally or intentionally.
Proving chemical trespass is often difficult because evidence is e ldom clear. If, for example, a prope11y was
treat d wiU1 a herbicide, rains or inigation could wash
the mate1ial onto an acljacent property, causing i.ajmy
to plants. However, considerable time may have passed
ince the herbicide may have been applied, raising the
que lion of whether U1e herbicide or omething else
was r ponsible. Also, the herbicide may not be the
only factor affecting the planL Finding the re ponsible
agent may require careful research and testing. The
appraiser should detennine the cause of the ir\jwy, its
extent, the Condition of U1e affi cted plant( ) before
the damag , and its lo in value. Determining responsibil ity u uaily is not the function of the plant appraiser unJe it is prut of the assignment.

C71apt"7' 4: Factors in Pla nt A ppraisal

Di ease-causing biotic agents may inc lude fungi,

ts, phytoplasma-Lik o rgani ms,
nematodes, and even se d plants. Ins ts r an increase
the possibility of diseas when their ext nded fe cling
results in defoliation or tern girdling. MistJcto are
perennial evergreen parasite that grow on trun ks and
ran kill
branches of trees and lu-ub . Leafy misUet
branches but mainly weaken plants; dwarf mi t i t
on conifers are more deadly.
Abiotic agen ts of no ninfectious clisord rs include
unus ual or prolonged a dverse clima tic o ndilion ,
poor soil, and stresse plac d on plants, some time by
human ac tions. Air temperature in the "concrete
canyon" of c ities can b too h ot and dry for many
plants in the swruner. Rainfall can be too spru , causing drough t; too much water could ca u e a turated
soil. Iligh soil alkalinity can result in c hlorosi ; oil
acictity can increase mineral toxicitie . Insufficient soil
volume can inhibit plant growth. Competition with other
plants can lead to reduc d growth. Girdling ( trangulating) roots can seriously re tri t growth and stability
and can lead to plant failwe.
When the root area is covered by sid walks, driveways, buildings, o r streets, the health and longevity of
trees in the same or nearby locations can b s ubstantially reduced. Whe n natural or landfill gas s leak into
lhe soil or air (for example, c hlorine a t swimming
pools), plants frequently decline or fail When plants
are expo ed to the drift of de-icing salt, o r to the accumulation of it in the soil, plants closest to the source
usually sho w the most evere symptoms of decline
and may fail long after the salts are gone from the soil.
Plants affected by onstruction projects or in1proper
planting procedures may dccLine over evcral years,
even ten yeru'S or longer~ become WlSighUy; and finally
die. Soil compaction usually results in reduced vigor
and could be fatal. Poor water percola tion through
tight soil or sub oils re ults in plallt decLine and/or s urface rooting alld ultimate failure. Reduc d availability
of nutrie nts may re ult in off-color, s malle r leaves
and/or hortened twig growth. Industrial activities that
pollute the air or water can stress plants over large
areas, as can the mi us of pesticides or herbicides.
Finally, uch stresses initiated by abiotic agents often
predi po e the plants to attack by secondary biotic
agents.

:31

viruse , bacteria, ins

Plants affected by
construdion pro;ects
or improper planfing
procedures may
decline over several
years, . ..

..

'
,.

3".2

Guide for Plant Appro

If air or water pollution is uspected, contact \11th

extension ervices, weather bureau , and prop('f1!
owners, as well as local, state, and federal authoritih
involved with problems of pollution, may be necessal}
in order to develop a background on the circumstance:;
that could be contributing to pollution problems.
The effects of biotic and abiotic agents are often on
the interior of a plant and not readily een, but they
must be understood in order to judge the Condition
of a plant and to s upport the appraisal reports.
Techniques have been developed and the inte1nal anatomy of di eased plants has b en described to help an
appraiser interpret patterns of internal decay and other
infectious problems. Infrared photography of foliage
may be used to detect or verify that plants are suffering from abnormal stress. Understanding a specie'
annua l shoot growth can help to determine vigor.
Trunk core samples may be taken to detemline the viability of a lre through growtl1 ring analysis.
Iajuries can occw to the roots, trunk, or crown of a
plant and can be caused by construction, vehicular
accidents, vandalism, chemicals, fire, lightning, mainThe extent ofiniury to tenance quipment uch as lawn mo wers and string
l:lirnmers, and fumes. Stonns can break branches and
aboveground portions iajure the crown; low temperatures can kill susceptiof aplant is not os ble plant parts; and plants can be injured to some
difficult to assess and degree by pruning, cabling, bracing, irtjection or in1plantation of chemicals, transplanting, and cavity work.
quantify os those that
The extent of iajwy to abovegroWld po1tions of a
()(OJ( below the {TOUfK1.
plant is not as difficult to asse and quantify as those
tllat occw below the ground. The reduction in C.Ondition
rating due to lo of branches or damage to trunk bark
depe nds on the extent of branch loss or bark daniage,
as weUas on the health and species of a plant, as some
species arc mo re to lerant to inj ury than others.
Vertical bark iajurie on a tree trunk are not as serious
as ho1izontal irtjuries of equal area If a vigorous, healtlly
tree wer to lose le than 20 p ercent of its bark
arnund its trunk circumference, the main effect would
be visual. Th negative effect of an olde1~ mature tree
lo ing 20 p rcent of its bark is much more severe than
if the ame iajury had occu1T d to a younger tree.
Oldrr tree often have more difficulty creating callus
to cover the WOWld.
The extent of crown irtjwy caused by lost, broken, or
oth rwise iajured branches can be reasonably estimated

C'lwptcr 4: Fartors i n Pl.ant Am1misal

and then compared lo the fu ll extent of the crown

before the casualty. If, how ver, more Lhan 50 p<.>rcent
of the tree' canopy ( d pending on the species' piuning
tolerance) were lo t, in mo t cas the appraisal lo
would probably be 100 percent. Ilo w ver, SC'veral
points hould b considered. The fus l is the ability of
the plant to develop new branche . Mo t con.ifers, for
example, will not prout from old wood. AnoU1er point
is thal declining tre , or tr e with a trunk dfamelcr
greater than 30 in. (75 cm), often fail lo dev<>lop new
crowns or develop them very slowly. Also, U1e cost
and exlent of Lhe maintenance nece ary lo co1wct
the damage, ext nd the life of the Lr e, and re tore its
aesthetic and fw1ctional value may b excessive when
compared to the tree' value.
The aclual decrease in valu of a damaged plant
may be ne ded for insw1lnce or litigation purposes. In
these situations, the appraiser may appraise the value
of the plant as it existed be fore the casualty, then
determine either Lhe value of the plant after U1e iajmy
or the extent of the i.ajury expressed as a percentage
of the total value. ln the first case, the loss of value of
an iajured plant is obtained by subtracting the value
after the dan1age from the value of the plant before the
damage. In Lhc second case, multiply Lhe vaJue before
the plant's injury by the percentage of lhe plant's
ir\jury.

Analysis of Condition Factors

The Condition rating of a plant is determined by the
sum of the rating scores for each of the following five
factors in Table 4.3. A eparate hazard tree evaluation
may be required for Lr es with poor structure or that
are in poor condition (Matheny and Clark 1994).

'

Guidef<Tr Plant Appraisal

TABLE 4.3. Guide to judging plant Condition.

Scoring system
No apparent problems
Minor problems
Major problems
Ex treme problems

4
3
2
1

Factor 1: Roots*
(A root collar inspection may be warranted.)
Root anchorage
Collar/flare soundness
Mechanical ir\jury
Girdling/kinked roots
Compaction/waterlogged roots
Toxic gases/chemical symptoms
Presence of insects or disease
Mushrooms (may need to inteIView owner)

- - -+

truc ture + Health = Subtotal

(1-4)
(1-4)
(2-.9)

Factor 2: 'frunk*
(Core sampling or climbing may be needed
and/or warranted to inspect the trunk.)
Sound bark and wood
Cavities
Mechanica.J or fire ir\jury
Cracks (frost or other)
Swollen or sunken areas
Presence of insects or diseas
Onks

~~~

(1-4)

=
= Subtotal

~~-

tru c t ure + Health

(l-4)

(2-S)

Factor 3: Scaffold Branches*

( limbing the tree may be warranted to inspect
the branch .)
trong attaclunents
mailer diameter than trunk where attached
Vertical branch distribution
Fr of included bark
Fr e of d cay and cavities
Well pruned
We ll-proportioned/proper taper
Wound clo we
+
D adwood or ftre ir\jury
lruc t ure + Health
In e ts or disease
(1-4 )
(l-4)
~~~

=
= Subtotal

~~-

(2-8)

C7wptcr4: Factors in /'I.ant ApJ~mi,S/

Factor 4: Small Branches and 1\vig

Vigor of curr nl shoots (compar pr vious growth)
Well distributed through canopy
Appearance of buds (color, hape, ize for U1e species)
Presence of insects or diseas
Presence of weak or dead twigs

I lealU1 Subtotal
( I~ )

Factor 5: Foliage and/or Buds

ize of foliage/buds
Coloration of foliage
Nutlient statu
Herbicide, chemical, pollution ir\jw-y
Wilted or dead leaves
Dry buds
Presence of insects or disease
Tolal subtotal points asse

lleaJLll ubtolal
( I~)

d for the five Factors

(8-3'2)

Divide subtotal points by 32 (total points po ible)

and multiply by 100 to obtain the Condition rating

(25-100)

As explained in U1e lcxl, boU1 structure and health items are to be rated for Lllc roots,
U1e trunk, and Lll<' scaffold branches. Rating roots, trunk, and scaffold branches for boLll
stn1clure and healU1 gives them Ll1<' necessary importance in U1e Condition rating. Small
branches and twigs, and foliag<' ancVor buds, arc mted only for health.

The Size of a landscape plant is usually expressed by

the dimensions of its aboveground parts b cause they
are visible and can be measured or estimated. The
Size of a tree is most commonly expressed by its height,
trunk diam Ler, or canopy size. A shrub or small
conifer in a lands ape is usually desclibed by its height
and/or branch pread. In a nursery plant, Size may b
indicated by trunk diamet r, plant height, branch spread,
or the size of its container. Even though coniferous
tree are commonly old by he ight, they are usually
measured in diameter andlor circumference of the
tnmk for valuation purposes.
The height, branch spread, and trunk dian1eter of a tree
ran be detennined, but no one measmemcnt adequately
reflects the thr e-dirnensional size of a tree. For trees
that are too large to transplant, a more realistic representation of size and value is given by the cross-sectional

Size

Guide for Pla111 Approi.sa/

36

area of the trunk rather than its diameter. Canopy size

can aid the plant appraiser when detemtining numbers
of replacement plants when employing the Replacement Method or Cost of C ure Method.
The h eight a t which the trunk diameter of a tree is
measured depends upon its size. The Am.erican tandard
for Nursery tock, ANSI 7.60.l (1996) states that measureme nts should be taken 6 in. (15 c m) above the ground
for trunk diameters up to and in luding 4 in. (10 cm). Larger
trees (assumed, but not stated, to be of transplantable
size) are to be measured at 12 in. (30 cm). Trees nomially
considered too laige to transplant are to be measured 4.5 ft
(l.4 m) above the ground. Tree , like conifers, which
have branc hes below 4.5 ft should be measured at a
height that most effectively repre ents the size of tree.
The height at which trnnk diam ters are given in this publication will be 6 in. (15 cm), 12 in. (30 cm), or4.5 ft (1.4
m) for the diameters or conditions given above.
To dete nnine the cross- ectional area of a tree trunk,
the trunk perimeter is considered to be a circle. The area
is calculated by measuring the p erimeter (hereafter
calle d circumference) of the trunk at 4.5 ft (1.4 m)
above the ground. The circumference of a tree trunk is
difficult for mo t people to visualize, so tree size is
usually expre sed by it.s trunk diameter, converted
from circ umfere nce, and is the dimension most commonly used by a.rborists and foresters. Arbo1ists often
use "diam ter tapes," which have standard English or
metric units on one ide, and tho e units divided by
3. 14 (n) on the o ther to read diame ters directly.
The area of a circle can be calc ulated by using either
its radius (1), diameter (d), or circumference (c):
,. = d + 2 = c + 27t
Area = m~ = 3. 141~
= 7U[2 + 22= 3. 14d2 + 4 = 0. 785c(l
=

7te2 + (2n)2 = 3.14c2 + 4(3.14)2 = 0.080c2

In previous editions of the Guide, the value of the

llws based on llUnk areas with diameters les.5 than 10 in.
(25 c m) was often le than the cost of replacement.
onversely, for trees greater than 30 in. (75 cm), tree values bas d on trunk area bccam unrealistically high.
To correct the e proble ms, use the Unit 'free Cost
for the Trunk Formula Me thod. 111e Unit 'free Cost
is the cost per unit area on the lrugest commonly available

Owptrr4: Factors in Plant A71pmisal

tree considered transplantable for th region ( hapter 5).

In addition, for tre larger than 30 in. (75 cm) in tnmk

diameter, 'Ihmk Areas (TA) are converted lo Adjusted
Trunk Areas ( ATA) lo account for a ratc-of-tree,alue increase of a large tree being 1 U1an il rate of
increase in trunk area In detennining lhe Basic Tree
Cost of a t:re , Ll'le Adjusted Trunk Area should be
used in place of Ll'le 'lhmk Area.
The Adjusted 'Ihmk Area for large tr
is based on
the premise that a large, matm tr would not increase
in value as rapidly as its trunk area would increase. It
is unlikely that a 42-in. (107-cm) tr e would be considered to be worth $3,400 more than a 40-in. (100-cm)
tree due to siz alon . Like many aspecls of real-eslate
valuation, trees reach an econoniic and aeslhetic rnaturity. Annual increases in size and age will not necessarily correspond lo an increase in cont1"ibuto1y
property value. An e.rception lo the use of the ATA
adjustment would be a historic tree.
The Adjusted Trunk Area for trees larger than 30
in. (75 cm) was determined empirically by the ouncil
of 'free and Landscape Appraisers on lhe basis of tJ1e
perceived increase in tree size, expected longevity,
anticipated rnaint nance, and structural afety. The
Adjusted Trunk Areas are expressed numcricaUy
(Tables 4.4-4. 7) and arc represented by a g rap h
(Figwe 4.1). Based on the Adjusted Trunk Areas
de1ived Crom quadrnlic formulas, values are calculated
or manuaUy interpolated for diameters or circumferences not listed in Table 4.4-4. 7.

:J7

38

Guidefor Plant ~PPlllisal

.(

'
2

25

150

20

<
w

/
/

125

a:

/
/

<
~
z

a:
....
c

....w .
en

15

100

z
<
<
w

I ATA..

.0

::> 8
c x
ct "c::
c =
-,

I
I

x
75

"E

r;

10

a:

<
~
z

50

a:

....

5
25

0
0

10
25

20
50

30
75

40
100

50
125

60
150

70
175

80in
200 cm

FIGURE 4.1. Curve TA depicts the increase in 1htnk Area witJ1 increasing diameter.
Cwve ATA represents tl1e rate of Adjusted 'Ihtnk Area increase at tl1e trunk diameters
above 30 in. (75 cm).
Measwx>ments taken al 4.5 ll ( 1.4 m) above tl1e ground.
**Adjusted Trunk Area (ATA) values considered to be reasonable for trees witl1 tnmk
cliam<'lers greater than 30 in. (75 cm) were estimated to obtain ctme ATA Quadratic
equations were calculated to rep re nt the curve of ATA values fom1d in Tables 4.4-4. 7.

39

Chapter4: Factors in Plant Appmisal

TABLE 4.4. English units. Trunk Areas (TA)* and Adjusted Trunk
Areas (ATA)** based on trunk ctiamete r (d) at 4.5 fl (1.4 m).
d
in

TA
i n2

d
in

TA
in2

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

3
7
13
20
28
38
50
64
79
95
113
133
154
177
201
227
254
283
3 14
346
380
415
452
491
531
572
615
660
707

31
32
33
31
35
3G
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

754
804
855
907
962
10 17
1075
11 34
11 94
1256
1320
1385
1451
1520
1590
166 1
1734
1809
1885
1963
2042
2123
2205
2289
2375
2462
2550
264 1
2733
2826

II

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

ATA
in 2

739
788
835

882
928
974
1018
1063
11 06
1149
1191
1233
1273
13 14
1353
1392
1430
1468
1504
154 1
1576
161 l
1645
1678
1711
1743
1775
1805
1836
1865

d
in

61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77

78
79
80
81
82
83
84

85
86
87
88
89
90

TA
in2

ATA
in 2

292 1
3018
3 11 G
3215
3317
3419
3524
3630
3737
3847
3957
4069
4183
4299
44 16
4534
1654
4776
4899
5024
5150
5278
5108
5539
5672
5806
5942
6079
6218
6359

1894
1922
1949
1976
2002
2028
2052
2076
2100
2123
2145
2166
2187
2207
2226
2245
2263
2280
2297
2313
2328
2343
2357
2370
2383
2395
2406
2417
2427
2437

TA - 0.785d 2
..ATA - - 0.335d 2 + 69.3d - 1087

_ ___.....

Guide for Pla111 ~PPlll

40

4
.(

.I

TABLE 4.5. English units. Trunk Areas (TA)* and Adjusted Trunk
Areas (ATA)** based on trunk circumferenc (c) at 4.5 fl (1.4 m).

2
c
in

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
3
39
40
41
42
43
44
45

46
47
48
49
50

TA
'>
in-

3
4
5
6
8
10

12
14
16
18
20
23
26
29
32
35
39
42
46
50
54

58
63
67
72
77
82
87
92
98
104
110
11 6
122
128
134
111
118
155
162
169
177
184
192
200

c
in

51
52
53
54

55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
6fi
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
S:l
84

86
87
88
89
00
91
92
93
94

TA
.in-

208
21G
225
233
242
251
260
269
278
288
298
308
318
328
338
348
359
370
381
392
403
415
426
438
450
462
474
487
499
512
525
538
55 1
564

578
592
606
620
631
648
662
677
692
707

TA

ATA

in

in-

'>

in 2

in

95
06
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
1ll
11 2
113
11'1
11 5
11 6
117
11 8
11 9
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132

722
737
753
76
7 1
800
8 16
832
849
865
882
899
916
933
950
968
986
1004
1022
1040
1058
1076
1095
1114
11 33
11 52
1171
l 191
1210
1230
1250
1270
1290
13 11
133 1
1352
1373
1394
1415
1436
1458
1480
1502
1524
1546

712
728
743
759
775
790
805
821
836
8fi 1
866
88 1
896
9 11
926
941
956
970
985
1000
1014
1029
1043
1057
1071
1085

140
111
142
143
144
145
1'16
1'17
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180

1:33

134
135
136
137
138
139

TA - o.osoc-l
.. ATA 0.0333c2 + 22.l c - JO 7

1100

1ll4
Jl 28
Jl41
1155
1169
1183
1196
1210
1223
1237
1250
1263
1276
1290
1303
1316
1329
1342

LS I

182
183
184

TA
in2

1568
1590
1613
1636
1659
1682
1705
1729
1752
1776
1800
1824
1848
I 73
1897
1922
1947
1972
1997
2022
2048
2074
2100
2126
2152
2178
220-1
2231
2258
2285
2312
2339
2367
2394
2422
2450
2478
2506
2535
2563
2592
2621
2650

2679
2708

\TA

int

13.)4
136;
13
1:192
140i
14li
1430
llL

1454
H6i
14i9
1491
1503
1515
1527
1538
1550
1562
1573
1585
1597
1608
1619
1631
1642
1653
1664
1675
1686
1697
1708
1718
1729
1740
1750
1761
1771
1781
1792
1802
1812
1822
1832
1842
1852

C1iaptrr4: Factors in Plant A7lpraisal

II

TABLE 4.6. Meu;c units. Trunk Areas (TA)* and Adjusted Trw1k
Areas (ATA)** based on trunk diamete r (d) al 1.4 rn ( 4.5 ft).
TA
cm-'>

ct
cm

TA
cm

5
6

20

38
50
64
79
95
113
133
154
177
201
227
254
283
314
346
380
415
452
491
53 1
572
615
660
707
754
804
855
907
962
1017
1075
1134
11 94
1256

41
42
43
44
45
46
47
4
49
50
51
52
53

1320
1385
1451
1520
1590
1661
1734
1809
1885
1963
2012
2123
2205
2289
2375
2462
2550
2641
2733
2826
2921
30 18
3116
32 15
3317
34 19
3524
3630
3737
3847
3957
4069
41 83
4299
4416

d
l'ffi

9
10
II

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

39
40

28

54

55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75

')

'TA 0.785d 2
"ATA - - 0.3:l5d2 176d - 7020

TA

cm

crn 2

76
77
78
79
80
81
82

4534
4(i54
4776
4899
5024
5150
527
5408
5539
5672
5806
5942
6079
62 18
6!359
650 1
6644
6789
6936
7085
7235
7386
7539
7694
7850
8008
8167
8328
849 1
8655
8820
8987
9156
9327
9499
9672

S.1

84
85
86
87
88

89
90

91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
10 1
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
11 1

ATA
cm..
4421
4546
4670
479:1
4916
5038
5159
5280
5400

5520
5638
5756
5874
5990
6107
6222
6337
6451
6564
6677
6789
6900
7011
7121
7230
7339
7447
7554
766 1
7767
7872
7977
8081
8184
8287
8388

ct

TA

('Ill

cm 2

j 12
113
114
11 5
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
l23
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147

9847
10024
10202
10382
10563
10746
10930
11116
1130<1
11493
11684
l 1876
12070
12266
12463
12661
12861
13063
13267
13471
13678
13886
14095
14307
14519
14734
14950
15167
15386
15607
15829
16052
16278
16505
16733
16963

ATA
cm-"
8490
8590
8690
8790
8888
8986
9083
9180
9276
937 1
9466
9560
9653
9746
9838
9929
10019
10109
10199
10287
10375
l0462
10549
10635
10720
10804
10888

10971
11054
111 36
11217
11298
11 377
11457
11 535
11613

Guidi'for PlaJU Appnim

42

4
.(

.<
2

TABLE 4.7. Metric units. Trunk Areas (TA)* and Adjusted 'Ihmk
Areas (ATA)** based o n trunk circumference (c) at 1.4 m (.t.5 ft).
c
TA
c
TA.,
c
TA
c
cm

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44

45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54

55
56
57
58
59
60

TA

cm2

20
23
26
29
32
35
39
42
46
50
54
58
63
67
72
77
82
87
92
98
104
11 0
116
122
128
134

141
148
155
162
169
177
184
192
200
208
2 16
225
233
242
25 1
260
269
278
288

c
cm

61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
7:3

74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84

85
86
87
88
89
90

91
92
93
94
95
96
97
9
99
100
IO I

102
103
101
105

cm2

cm

cm-

cm

cm 2

298
308
318
328
338
3'18
359
370
381
392
403
415
426
438
450
462
474
487
499
5 12
525
538
551
564
578
592
606
620
6:l4
648
662
677
692
707
722
737
753
768
784
800
816
832
849
65
2

106
107
108
109
1JO
1J 1
112
113
114

899
916
933
950
968
9 6
1004
1022

11 !)

1058
1076
1095
111 4
1133
1152
117 1
11 91
1210
1230
1250
1270
1290
1311
1331
1352
1373
1394
1415
1436
1458
1480
1502
1524
1546
1568
1590
1613
1636
1659
1682
1705
1729
1752
1776
1800

151
152
153
J&-1
155
156
157
158
159
J 60
16 1
162
163
164
165
J66
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180

l 24
184
1 73
1 97
1922
1917
1972
1997
2022
204
207 1
2100
2126
2152
217
2204
2231
2258
2285
2312
2339
2367
2394
2422
2450
2478
2506
2535
2563
2592
2621
2650
2679
2708
2738
2768
2798
2828
2858
2
29 1
2949
2980
3011
3042

116
117
11 8
11 9
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
141

145
146
147
148
149
150

10..tO

ISL

182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195

cm

1~

196 I 30;a
197 310:.i
3136
19
199 316.~
200 ~
3'.?r!
201
202 3264
203 3297
2().t m
20:> 3S11~
33!!~
206
342b
207
3461
208
349-\
209
3528
2LO
211 356:!
212 3-5!!6
3630
213
3~
214
369
215
3732
216
3767
217
380"2
218
3837
219
3872
220
390i
221
3943
222
3978
223
4014
224
4050
225
4086
226
4122
227
4159
228
4195
229
4232
230
4269
231
4306
232
4343
233
4380
234
44 18
235
4456
236
4494
237
238

239
240

4532

4570
460

<!:l

C/UJpler 4: Factors in Pio nl Approisal

('

TA

AT/\
cnr"

cm

cm2

211
212
213
244
N5
246
217
248
249
250
25 1
2-?
<>~
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271

4646 462 1
4685 466 1
4724 470 1
1763 474 1
4802 47 l
4841 482 1
488 1 486 1
4920 490 1
4960 4940
5000 4980
5040 5020
5080 5059
5121 5098
5161 5138
5202 5177
5243 5216
5284 5256
5325 5295
5366 5334
5408 5373
5450 541 2
5492 5450
5534 5489
5576 552
5618 5566
5660 5605
5703 5643
5746 5682
6789 5720
5832 5759
5875 5797
59 19 5835
5962 5873
6006 59 11
6050 5949
6094 5987
6138 6025
6183 6062
6227 6100
6272 613
6317 6175
6362 62 13
6407 6250
6152 628
6498 6325

272

27:1
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
22
283
284
285

AT/\
cm2

c
cm

TA.,
cm-

286
287
288
2 9
290
29 1
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
:309
310
311
312
313
:3 14
:31 5
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
3:30

6544 6362
6590 6399
6636 6436
66 2 6473
6!) 10
672
6774 6547
682 1 6584
6 68 662 1
69 15 6657
6962 6694
7009 673 1
7057 6767
7104 6803
7152 6840
7200 6876
7248 69 12
7296 6948
7345 6984
7393 7020
7442 7056
7491 7092
7540 7128
75 9 7164
7638 7199
7688 7235
7738 727 1
7788 7306
7838 734 l
7888 7377
7938 74 12
7988 7447
8039 7482
8090 7517
814 1 7652
8192 7687
8243 7622
8295 7657
8346 7692
8398 7726
8450 7761
8502 7796
8554 7830
8607 7864
8659 7899
87 12 7933

'TA 0.080c2
''ATA 0.0336c2 + 56.4c

7020

ATA
r m2

c
cm

TA
cm2

331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
35 1
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375

8765 7967
8818 800 1
8 71 8035
8924 8069
8978 8103
9032 8137
9086 8171
9140 8205
9194 8238
9248 8272
9302 8305
9357 8:339
94 12 S.'372
9467 8406
9522 8439
9577 8472
9633 850:>
9688 8538
9744 857 1
9 00 8604
9856 8637
9912 8670
9969 8702
10025 8735
10082 8768
10139 8800
10196 8833
10253 8865
10310 8897
10368 8929
10426 8962
10484 8994
10542 9026
10600 9058
10658 9090
10716 9121
10776 9163
10834 9185
10893 9217
10952 9248
11011 9280
11071 93 11
11130 9342
11190 9374
11250 9405

c
cm

TA.,
cm-

ATA

376
377
378
:!79
31:!0
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
39 1
392
393
394
395
396
397
39
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
4 12
4 13
4 14
415
416
417
418
41 9
420

11310
11 370
11 431
11491
11552
11613
11674
11735
11706
118fi8
11920
11982
12044
12 106
12168
12230
12293
12356
12419
12482
12545
12609
12672
12736
12800
12864
12928
12993
13057
13122
13187
13252
13317
13382
13448
13514
13580
13646
1371 2
13778
13844
13911
13978
14045
14 112

9436
9467
9498
9529
9560
9591
9622
9652
9683
97 14
9744
9775
9805
9835
9865
9896
9926
9936
9986
10016
10045
10075
10105
10134
10164
10193
10223
10252
10282
103 11
10340
10369
10398
10427
10466
10485
10513
10542
10571
10599
10628
10656
10684
107 13
1074 1

('ffi 2

SI
43
.6
.(

2(

44

Guidrj(Jr Pl11nJ

The 'frw1k Area or Adju ted Trunk Areacan be

o btaine d fro m a c urve ( Figure 4.1), tables (fables
4.4-4. 7) depending on whether English or metnc meas urem ents of trunk diameters fdJ or circwnference lrl
are used), or from these formulas:
F or trunk diameters 30 in. ( 75 cm) or less (either
English or metric):

'Ihmk area =0. 785<!2 or = 0.080c2

For trunk diameters grea ter than 30 in. (75 cm)
or circwnfe re nces grea ter than 94 in. (240 cm):
English units:
ATA = -0.335d2 + 69.3d- 1087
ATA =-0.0333& + 22. l c- 1087
M etric units:

ATA =-0.335d2 + l 76d - 7020

ATA =-0.336c2 + 56.4c - 7020
Software to compute these equations is commerciall}
available.
If circumference is measured in centimeters, diameter in inches can be closely approximated by dividing
circ umfer ence (c) by 8 (2.54 x 3.14 = 7.9756). For
example, a tree with a circumference of 40 cm has a
diameter of 5 in. 1hmk Area and Basic 'free Cost
can be more easily determined in centimeters and size
more understandably expre ed in inches. A computer
can be programmed to input circumference in centimeters and produce djameter and trunk area in English
units and the Appraise d Value in any cwrency.

Elliptical Cross Sections

It s hould be realized that few trunk cross sections are
ection deviates
circles, and that the farther a cro
from a circle, the mailer the area will be for a given
circumference. lf it is obvious that a trunk cross section
i elliptical (oval) instead of a circle, use the following
fonnuJa to more ac urately detennine 'frwtlc Area:

Area = 0.7 5 x large t diameter x mallest diameter

in tead of
Area =0.78.5 x ([2

(7iaptrr4: Factors in Plant Am>misal

15

FIGURE 4.2. 1Tecs with fairly straight, uprighl trunks with the
lowest branch arising on U1c trunk higher Ulan G fl (1.8 m) above
llie ground should be measured at 4.5 fl ( 1.4 m ).

"Swedish" calipers can measure up to 50 in. (125 cm)

and are handy to measure diameters of elliptical trnnks,
as well as low-branched trees. Elliptical trunks commonly
occur on leaning lr s, closely planted trees in a windrow, and tree ubj c t to prevailing winds. For trees
wilh trunk c ro scclion larger than 700 in2 (4,400
cm2), use one o f the Tables 4.4--4. 7 Lo conve1t 'frunk
Areas lo Adjusted Trunk Areas. (For example, if
the calculated area of an elliptical trunk TA is 1,520 in2,
the ATA is 1,334 in2).

Height of Measure ment

Thees normally onsid red loo large to transplant are lo
be measured 4.5 fl (1.4 m) above the groillld (Figure 4.2).
Measuring the circwnference slightly above or below the
usual 4.5 fl (1.4 m) height of trees with even slighl trunk
taper can r ult in considerable differe nces in 'frunk
Area or Adjusted 'lhmk Area If the trunk has a smaller
circumfere nce at a height below the circ umference a t
4.5 fl (1.4 m), use lhe lower measurement to detemune
lhe lrilllk area. The s in a forest characte1istically have
growing in an open landscape.
les.5 tap r Lhan Lr

Trees in o forest
choroderisticol/y hove
less toper than trees
growing in on open
londs!ope.

46

Guide for Plant .~pprolSQ/

FIGURE 4.3. As shown in the top and bo ttom drawings, the trunk
circumference hould be rneasurccl at right angles to the trunk 4.5
rt ( 1.4 m) alo ng t11e center of the trunk axis, so that the height is
the average o f the horte l and longest sides of the trunk.

C'hapter4: Factors in Pl.ant Am>raisa/

FIGURE 4A. When low branches preclude measuring tJ1e tnmk

at 4.5 ft ( 1.4 m), measure tJw smallest circumferen<'e lx'low the
lowest branch. ln this example, an alternative would Ix' to determine the S\U\1 of the cross-sectional areas of the two stems measured about 12 in. (30 cm) above the crotch; tJ1en averetge the sum
of 1J1e two branch areas and the smallest cross-secUona.l area below
the branches. This may give a better estimate of Lrec size. Record
the height of mcasurement(s) and tJ1e reasons 1hat h<'ight or those
heights were chosen.

Modifications to Tree Size Measurements

Leaning Tree or Tree on a Slope. The trunk measurement
of a leaning tree or a tr c on a lope sho uld be made at
4.5 fl (1.4 m) along the tnmk axis so that the distance
is the average o f 01 horte t and longest sides of the
trunk (Figure 4.3). The measurement is made at right
angl to the trunk

Low Branching. Trunks of low-branching trees are difficult to measwe at 4.5 ft (1.4 m) above the ground
because one or more limb interfere. In such cases, the
malle l trunk diameter below 4.5 ft ( 1.4 m) usually
provides a good estimate of tree size (Figure 4.4). A more
realistic measurement may be made of a tree with one
or two low branches by averaging the trunk areas above
and below the branches. If branching is particularly
low, consider it to b a multi-trunk tree. Trunk mea-

47

48

GuidR for Plant Approi.sal

Figure 4.5. In a multi-stem 11w, measwi? the circumference of each

trunk tern at 4.5 ft (l.4 m) above tJ1e ground. The cros.5-scctional
square-inch area of each trunk stem is cletemtined and then added
togetJ1er to obtain a total tnmk an'a that is representative of the
size of the tree, assuming each stem conllibutes its proportionate
share to the canopy.

wement at 4.5 ft (l.4 m) of nearby trees of the same

species of similar crown volume can be used in place of
the measurement of the tree in question or as a check
of its measwement.

Excessive Trunk Flore. Exe ive tmnk flare presents a

problem similar to that of low-branching trees. If the
trunk continues to taper markedly above 4.5 ft (1.4 m),
a trunk measurement at that height may not acctrrately
repre ent the size of the lre . Either measure higher
on the trunk if it will provide a reasonable estimate of
tree ize, or measure nearby tree as suggested above
for low-branching tree .
Multi-Stem Tree (or Tight Clump of Several Trees) (Figure
4.5). Determining the ize of a multi-stem tree may
require considerable judgment in d ciding how to meaure each stem and e timate its contJibution to the
total tree. veraJ ways are possible.

OmplIT4: Factors i11 Plaut Amm1isal

Method 1: If a multi-stem tree of similar transplantable size is available, use the Replac mcnL o l Method.
Method 2: lf all of the stems rui e from o r within 3 fl
(l m) of the ground and each stem conllibul s equally
to U1e canopy, then determine the um of the cro sectional areas of each lem measwed 4.5 ft ( l.4 m)
from its base (s e Figur 4.5). Differ nt stem configurations may requir measuring at o ther heights or locations to more accw-alely repre ent the size of a stem.
Stems that fork 3 to 5 fl ( 1 lo 1.5 m) ab ve the ground
can be measured either at their least c ircumference
below the fork ( ce Figure 4.4) or 12 to 18 in. (30 to 45
cm) above the fork.
Method 3: lf all the terns do not contribute equally
to their proportional hare of the crown, then determine the sum of the cross- ectional area of each of the
stems and a<ljust the cross-sectional area of each such
stem so that it approximates its proportio nal contribution to the crown of the tree. lf, for example, a stem
has a cross-sectional area that is 25 p rcent of the sum
of all the stems but contributes o nly 15 percent to the
crown volume, the area of that Lem would be a<ljusted by multiplying it by 0.6 (15% divided by 25% = 6006
or 0.6). Even though the condition of U1e stem in question may be primruily re ponsible for its low proportion of crown, o nly the stem's contributio n to the
crown volume sho uld be considered in acljusting its
cross-sectional area. At least one s tem , usually the
largest one, will b given full value ( 100%) for its crosssectionaJ area
Method 4: Determine the s ize of acljaccnt singletem trees of th same pecies with crowns of sinUlar
ize. ('This could also be a check for the value obtained
by Method 2 or 3.)
Determination of condition of the tr e as a whole,
which will determine the C-Ondition factor to be used
in acljusting th tree' Basic Tree Cost was described
earlier in this chapter. Frequently, a multi- tern tree has
greater aesth tic valu in U1 landscape because of its fmm
and texture. o me multi- lem tree are living culptures, and their Location (Contribution and Placement Ratings) should reflect their atlla tive features.

Tree Cut Off Below 4.5 Ft (1.4 m)

lf il is difficult or impo ible lo make a measurement,
(perhaps only Hl stump remains so that it is not possible

19

Different stem
configurations may
require measuring
at other heights or
locations to more
accurately represent
the size of astem.

Guide for Pfa111 lppruisal

50

to accurately determine the Size of the casualty), a

reasonable approximation of the tree's Size hould be
acceptable. This is particularly true where the factors
of Size would affect the mathematical certainty of the
value of the casualty.
Even though the U.S. Forest Service provides tables
of species diamete1 , it does not provide a reasonable
estimate of size because the data applies lo forest
trees with different crown and taper characteristics
than landscape trees that have been exposed to more sun
and wind. The diameter size of a landscape tree that has
been cut off below a 4.5 ft (1.4 m) height measurement
can be estimated with reasonable accuracy if there are
landscape trees of the same specie growing under
similar conditions nearby. The accuracy of uch an
estimate depends on the number of existing trees of
t he same species, how close to the ground the tree

TABLE 4.8. Black oak species (Quercus velutina), Cape Cod,

Massachusetts. Trunk diamelers at 4.5 ft (Y) and near the ground (X)
(assumed lo be stumps) of 20 open-grown landscape black oak trees and
the values of XY and X2 are required for a linear regression equation.
Tree

x-

twnv dia.

y - d4.5'

XY

I
2

12.25
8.5
14
10
12.5
10.5
12.5
9.75
12.5
1 J. 5

9
7
9.75
9
IL
8 .5
10.25
7.75
10.25
10
8
11 .25
7
10.5
10
13.75
8.f>
7
11

110.25
59.50
136.50
90
137.50
89.25
128. 13
75.56
128. 13
11 5
72
135
56
120.75
105
209.69
85
56
134.75
132

150.06
72.25
196
100
156.25
110.25
156.25
95.06
156.25
132.25
81
144

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
JO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Total~

9
12

8
11.5
10.5
15.25
10
8
12.215
12
222.5

ll

190.5

2176.01

64
132.25
11 0.25
232.56
JOO

6-1
150.06
144
2546.75

Cliapter4: Factors i11 Plant Appraisal

51

was cut, and the me thod of calc ula tio n. The mor
trees of the same species, the more re lia ble will be lhe
estimate.
One method i to measure th trunk diameters at
tJ1e height where the tree was cut and at 4.5 ft (1.4 m)
(designated X and Y re pectively in Table 4.8) of the
casualty tree and up to 20 trees of the same p cie
growing nearby. Then divide th s mall r urn [Y, lhose
at 4.5 ft (1.4 m)] by the larger diameter sum (X) Lo
obtain the quotient (q). Multiply the tump diameter of
the casualty tree by q to obtain lh e timated diameter
of the casualty t:r eat 4.5 fL

Y + X = the ratio of the d 4.5 n to the d stump = q

Then:
d4.5 rt= dstump of the casualty tr

xq

Example la.

If the diameter of the casualty stump= 10.2 in.

From Table 4.8:
LXdstump

= 222.5

lYd.1.5 n
q

= 190.5

d~ .5 fl

= clo;Lump of lhe casualty tree x q

= 10.25 in. x 0.856 = 8.7 in. Round to 8.8 in.
(see Appendix Il)

d .1.5 fl

= IYd4.5 ft + IXdstump = 190.5 + 222.5 = 0.856

Example lb.

If only the first ten tree listed in Table 4.8 had been measwed, q
would be 0 .811 and the estimated djameter of the casualty tree
would be 8.3 in. (21 cm). If only the last ten trees had been measured, q would be 0.90 and the estimated diameter would be 9.2 in.
(23 cm). The cross-sectional areas of the trunk at 4.5 ft (1.4 m)
using U\e diameters of the 20 and 10 tree measurements are:
Area =0. 785<2
20 trees = 0.78.5 x 8.82 = 60.79. Round to 61 in2
l t 10 trees = 0.78.5 x 8.32 = 54.08. Round to 54 in2
2nd 10 trees = 0.785 x 9.22 = 66.44. Round to 66 in2

52

Location

Guidefor Plant Appraisal

Location involves the Site of a property or landscape.

a plant's unique functional and ae thetic Contributions, and the Placement of the individual plant in a spe.cific landscape. The Location rating is the average of the
Site, Contribution, and Placement percentage rating;.

Site Rating
The value of a Site is expr ed by its relative market
value within the area in which the Site is located (see
Chapter 3, Chapter 7, and Minnesota 1999). A Site is
rated in relation to the value of other areas in the same
city, county, or region, including the area's economic,
functional, and aesthetic asp cts.
The general appearance of the Site in which the
appraised plant(s) i located is important. An attractive, well-maintained house, in an effective natural or
designed landscape wiU1 att.racUve, well-proportioned,
healthy plants adds to the value of a Site. On the other
hand, a median of a busy fow'-lane, divided boulevard
in a business di trict with attractive, well-kept stores is
more valuable than a sinlilar etting with poorly main
tained stores and utilHy pol along the street.
The relative market value of the area and Site is
rated as follow: .
900/~100%
Very high
High
80%-89%
Average
700/o-7goAJ
Low
60%-Q9%
Very low
10%-59%
A remote Site in a wooded area may get a higher
rating than a similar wooded Site in an intensive
development On the other hand, the greater the use of
a mall or park, the greater could be its rating.

Contribution Rating
functional and ae thetic conllibutions of a plant influence its value in mo t etlings. Th
benefits may be
affected by plant ize, hape, branch trncture, foliage
density, and disllibution. A plant may have historic significance, be a rare pecies, or po ess a unique strnctu re. P la nts may have screening, privacy control,
wildlife habitat, or energy-saving qualities (see Figure
1.1 and Table 4.9).

nwpter 4: Factors in PlantAppro.isnl

S:J

Placement Rating
The Placement of the plant being appra ised may
determine how effective it is in providing its functional
and aesthetic a ttributes (rating range 10 lo 100 pe rcent). For example, lhe placement of a d ciduous tree
to provide summe r shade and winter s un for a patio is
critical. Similarly, pla nt Placement i func tio nally
impo11ant for windbreaks, now depo itio n, ero ion
control, and dust reduction. Placement in the Site is
al o important from an ae the tic vie wpoint when a
plant can provide a land cape foc us, frame a vie w,
screen unsightly objects, or accent a building. ertain
species may have characteristic that r q uire greater
maintenance to be effective in the landscape unle
the plants can b placed to minirniz th amo unt of
care. For example, a tree with a heavy fruit or leaf problem would require high maintenance, unless it were
located where s uch litter would not be a problem. 1l1
seed pods of lhe Ja panese pagodatree ( ophorajaponica) are me y on walks in rainy a utumnal areas. ln
colder regions, however, lhe pods remain dry and hard.
Ratings should be acijustcd lo reil ct lhese or other posibilities.
TABLE 4.9. Suggested functional (F) and aesthetic (A) contribution
factors (rating range 10 lo 100 percent).

Accent structur (A)

Aesthetic values
(growth habit, bark texture/color,
foliage color/texture, flower odor/
color/size, fruit prominence/duratio n,
fruit size/use, fruit color/odor (A)
Air purification (F)
Allergenic prop rties (pollen and
dem1a toxins) (F)
Cleanliness (flowers, fruit, leave ,
twigs, duration of leaf fall) (A) (F)
Creates vistas (A)
Defines spac (A)
Di.Jt and dust adsorption (F)
Erosion control (F)(A)

Frames view (A)

Historic, rare, or unusual
specimen (A)
Light and glare shield (F)
oise attenuation (F)
Safety barrier (F)
Screens undesirable views (A)(F)
Sun radiation and reflection
control (F)
Thaffic control (F)
'franspiration cooling (F)
Unusually attractive plant
features (A)
Wildlife attrac tion (F)(A)
Wmd control (F)

54

Placem ent within a Site usually would have little

effect on a plant's transpirational, photosynthetic, or
air purification contribution. An exception might be the
reduction
of air particulates and/or fog by the proper
Asingle specimen
Place ment of a thick windbreak planting.
tree may hove greater
A single specimen tree may have greater value than it
value than it would if would if it were one among everal. The los.s of a single
it were one among tree would be a greater loss than if one of several well'
several lost On the other hand, the loss of one tree in a row of a
formal planting of trees could be a greater IOS5 than the
average value of all the trees would be; the loss of one
tree would be much more apparent, and its IOS5 would
detract from the appeal of the intact planting.
A plant's Placemen t also may have an unfavorable
effect on the Site and on the planl Overhead utility wires
(see Chapter 11), streetlights, and nearby building.5 or
walls are major obstacles that often prevent a plant
from obtaining (or maintaining) a natrna.l form. Controlling a plant's size can be expensive. Large trees in
narrow planting trips and other re tricted spaces can
be adversely affected, causing considerable damage to
pavement and structures.
Plant Placement, and its functional and aesthetic
contributions, are more important in certain landscapes
than in others. For example, plant Placement to protect a building entrance from winter winds may be
more important than it wouJd be in a public park or
along a city streeL

Determining the Location Factor

The Location Factor is determined as follows:
(Site+ Contribution + PJacement) +3=
Location Rating
1. Rate the overall quality of the general area and of
the buildings, landscape tructures, and plantings
of the Site. Detennine an appropriate rating (see
Site rating).
2. Rate the Contribution of the plant in providing each
of the functional and aesthetic benefits identified
(Table 4.9). Determine an appropriate rating.
3. Rate how effectively the P la cement of the plant
provides its functional and aesthetic benefits.
Detcnnine an appropriate rating.
4. Average the Site, Contribution and Placement
ratings to determine Lhe Location rating.

(7wpter4: Factors in ~a n t App raisal

Example

Asolitary 30-in. (91-cm) diameter, 50-ft (lfrm) tall while? oak tree
(Que1r.us alba) is localed 2.5 ft (7.6 m) in the direction of Uw aflc:>moon
sun from the back corner of a four-bedroom ranch- tyle home in a
moderately "upscale" neighborhood. The tree hades a baC'kyard patio
and screens the view from the living and dining rooms from industrial smokestacks 1,000 yd (1 km) to the souU1we L An ex'tensive
lawn is bordered by well-kept shmbs, bedding plants, and small trees.
1. Site rating range (10 to 100 percent)
The area is a high-quality, well-maintained suburban residence
and is given a rating of 80% under Land Use.

Site rating =

+ 10, or 80%

2. Contribution rating range (10 to 100 percent)

Unique tree? charactc1istics include 10-fi ( 3-m) clearance and
well-thinned crown that lets surnrner brrezes and winter sun
through. Light, filtered shade. Tree structure is intere ling.

Contribution rating = 90%

3. Placeme nt rating range (10 to 100 pc:>rcent)
Tree prowcts patio and the house from afternoon sun and
unsightly view but does not protect U1e house from morning
sun. Patio receives some winter afternoon un.

Place ment rating = 85%

(Site+ Contribution + Placeme nt) +3 =Location rating
(W..6 + 9091> + 85%) +3 =85%

CHAPTER 5

Cost Approach to Plant Appraisal

&fore beginning an appraisal where a tree is involved,

the appraiser should evaluate the structuml integrity
of any tree that may po e an 1tnreasonable 1isk. In
other words, the value of any tree found lo e.rhibi l
unreasonable 1isk would be e:rpressed in tenns of
negative value (liability) because the tree was a
detriment to the value of the properly. If the tree is
considered an unreasonable ri. k, i ts value would be
the cost of rnmoval and cleanup, minus its salvage
value. On the other hand, if lhe perceived 1isk could
be mitigated, the Cost of Repair Method could be
used (also see Condition, Chapter 4).
Whether the Replacement Cost (page 60), the
1runk Formula (page 70), or som other method of
appraisal is used depends on the species; its size; the
large t commonly available Lra nsplanlable Lree; its
ro t of installation, including removal and cleanup;
and the reason for appraisal. The value of a plant conidered to be of replaceable size should b determined
by the Replacement Cost Me thod. The value of
palm trees vary depending ptimarily on species, height,
and co t of installation. A palm tree's value s hould be
estimated by the Replacement Cost Me thod.
The Cost of Repair Method (page 76) is appropriate for damaged pla nt whose qua lity could be
returned to near its predamaged condition and appearance by proper treatment. The plants hould be appraised
as to their pr damaged state and after specified corrective measures have been taken. 'TI1 decrease in value
of the plants would be the cliffere nee between the two
appraisals plus the cost of needed corrective measures.
When extensive damage has occ u1Ted, including
loss of plants and destiuction of ancillary features such
57

4
'

58

Guutr/Qr l'lant ~

as walks, roads, driv ways, landscape structure.5, sliav d

terrain, and so forth, the treatment to return the pro,1erty to a reasonable level of its original condition is
known as the Co t of C ure Method (page 76).
With each of these methods, the following infonnation is needed to determine the final appraised value
The appraiser will need the nursery cost of the largl')t
commonly available transplantable tree (Replacement
'free Size) of the same or a similar species and its lnsUlJ.
lation Cost. Installation Co t includes transporiation to U1e site, p lanting, p runing, staking, maintenance
prior to acceptance, insurance, overhead, and profit The
Species, Size, Condition, and Location of the tree
being appraised are al o required. For trees larger than
transplantable s ize, the cost per unit of trunk area
(Unit 'free Cost) must be determined. The Cost and
Species rating of the large t commonly available musery tree should be d one by a regional conunittee (see
Regional Plant Appraisal Committee, below). If this information is not available, the appraiser must develop it.

Regional
Plant
Appraisal
Committee

For the e appraisal methods to be effective, relatively

easy to use, and widely accepted in a region, it is recommended that a committee of ho1ticultw-aJ profesionals provide the information n eeded to appraise
plants (primarily tree ) for a given region, particularly
for appraisal by the Trunk Formula Method.
The committee s hould be compo ed of arborists,
landscape architects, land cape contractors, nursery
professionals, and urban fore ters. A region would primarily b delineated by p lant nwse1ies and suppliers
that have similar practices and costs. After the region
has been delineated, the committee hould determine
how p lants are grown, marketed, and installed. Specific
regional infom1ation needed includes
geographical boundruies of the region and the
basis for the decision.
a listing of tree Speci es in the region and their
ratings.
the Size of the large t commonly available transplantable nw e1y tree (Re p lacement 'free Size)
by the method(s) generally accepted (may vaiy
wiU1 pecie ).

0101trr 5: Cost Approach to Plant Appraisal

the median wholesale and re tail c o ts o f tJ1 large t

commonly available transplantable tree of a t least
three commonly grown, high-quality pecie from
at least ilir e local or regional nurse ries, s upplie1 ,
or contractors , which may vary with speci . A
median co t is appropriate to use b ecause the re
are an equal number of co ts greater ilian and less
than the median. Equally import.ant, plants are
available at that pecific cost.
for the trees in the preceding item , a detennination
of the median Installation Cost for a reasonable
distance from the tree's ource. Obtain the co t of
installing a replacement tree (or each ize group of
trees, if neces.sary) in the region. The Installation
Cost include lhe co t of transporting lhe plant lo
the site, planting it in the same placem nt as the
appraised tr , and monitoring it during ilie maintenance p iiod. IL also includes a guarantee and a
reasonable profiL l listorically, the cost of installation
was usually considered to be two to three time
the cost of tJ1 tl'ee. Means i te Work and w ndscape
Cost Database may be helpful in aniving at installation costs (Means 1999).
a deterrn ination of the appropriate co t of a tree
and its installation (Installed Tree Cost).
a delenninalion of the median wholesale, retail, and
installed costs pe r unit of trunk area (in2 or cm2 )
of lhe high-quality species selected in #4 and #6.
a detennination of which cost, bas d on wholesale, retail, o r install d, per unit trunk area (called
the Unit Tree Cost) mo t nearly represents lhe
increase in th value of an appraised tree with
increase in trunk area
the understanding lhat ituations or circumstances
may arise when the appraise r has infom1ation or
reasons that may justify c titeria, procedures, or
ratings iliat dill r Crom tho e o f the Regional
Con1mittee. It is therefore important iliat there be
a mooili transition in costs between those of
and the co ts of larger trees
replac ment Lr
based on the Thunk Formula Me thod.
S p ecies Ratings, Re place m e nt Tree Sizes,
Replaceme nt Thee Costs, Installation Costs, and

59

60

Guide far Pf11111 Appraisal

the Installe d Re placeme n t Tree Costs can ran

within a region.
parate appraisal criteria, Species
ratings, and Unit Tree Costs for subregions han
been developed in some regions. The infonnation dew~
oped by a Regional Plant Appraisal Committee hould
be published by the approp1iate chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture or other regional
groups. The regional co t information should be
reviewed annual ly and any c hanges published. Ten
copies of all regional inf01mation should be sent to the
office of the Coilllcil of 'Tree and Landscape Appraisers
to further the upp01i offuture publications.

Replacement
Cost Method*

Nursery plant cost is

. . . boseJprimady on
the time and expense
involved in growing
the plant anti on
its availability, not
necessarily on the
landscape quality of
the species.

The Replacement Cost Me thod can be used to apprai5e

the value of landscape tree , hrub , and vines. The
Appraised Value of a land cape plant is based on the
cost of replacing a plant of the san1e or a comparable
species and size in th same place. The Installed Plant
Co st include the costs of the plant and its installation. The Installe d Plant Cost is adjusted by the
Sp eci es, Condition, and Location ratings of the
appraised plant(s) to obtain the Adjusted Installed
Plant Cost. Uthe apprai ed plant(s) is to be replaced,
the costs of plant removal and cleanup (Removal and
Cle anup Costs) are added to obtain the Appraised
Value. U the appraised plant is not to be replaced, the
Adjusted Ins talle d Plan t Cost is the Appraised
Value.
The acceptable method(s) for replacing plants in
the region is d temlined by the Regional Plant Appraisal
ommittee or by the individual appraiser if a committee
does not exist. For the value of a tree to be appraised
by the Replacement Co t MetJ10d, in most cases, it
hould not be larger than the large t commonly available transplantable tr e as de temlined by the Regional
ommittee or by an appraiser. This ize may vary with
specie .
Nmse1y plant cost is considered to be based p1imarily
on the time and expense involved in growing the plant
and on its availability, not neces.saiily on the landscape
quality of the pecic . In order for a landscape plant lo

*Rrvir w Chapt<'rs 8 ruicl 11 U10roughly if plant replacement is

cons ide red within an <'a.s<'llll'nt or right-of-way.

Oiapter 5: Cost Amnooch to Plant Appmisal

61

have value, it has to be planted (or replaced, if lo l) and

the installation co t of a plant is conside red to be as
much a part of its in-ground c os t as the co t o f the
plant Therefore, the Installed Plant Cost (the co ts
of the plant and its installation) s hould b adjusted by
the Species, Condition, and Location rating.s. lf an
appraised plant must be rep la ced, the Removal and
Cleanup Costs are added to the Adjusted Installed
Cost to obtain the Appraised Value .

Steps to Determine Plant Value by the

Replacement Cost Method (see pages 64 and 65)
Field Obsmvations
1. Identify th plant Species .
2. Evaluate and record the truc ture and health
(Condition) of the plant(s) to be appraised. If
the plant is damaged or destroyed, its Condition
prior to its b ing damaged s hould b evalual d
( ee Condition, Chapter 4). ln m ost case , except
for large specime ns, the Condition of tu'l.lbs and
vines would b evaluated only for h ealth (sec
Replacem ent Cost M thod for Shrubs, Hedges,
and Vines , page 69).
3. Measure or estimate the size of ea c h plant or
representative sample of each spe cies to b
appraise d . Dep nding on the number of plants
and sp cie and the magnitude of the appraisal,
a sketch map o f the planting may be appropriate.
4. Evaluate and record the Site, Contribution and
Placeme nt factors of the damaged plant(s) to
obtain the Location rating.s for each plant or
group of plants ( ee Location, hapter 4).
5. lf the plant(s) is to be replaced, estimate the
Removal and Cleanup Costs.
Regional Plant Appraisal Committee and/or
Appraism--Developed or -Modified Infor mation
6. Deterrnin the Species rating. (If this infonnation
is not available from the Regional Plant Appraisal
ommitlee, U1e appraiser must detennine its rating).
7. If the plant b ing appraised is the same size or
smaller than th largest Replacement Plant Size
as dete rmined by the Regional Committee, the
Replacement Plant Size s hould be the size of

62

Guide for Pla11t Appmi$!1/

the appraised planL If the appraised plant is larger,

either the Replacem e nt Co t Method plus
compoWlding the co ts of maintenance to bring
the plant to n ar its precasualty ize or parity (see
Appendix I), or the 'Irunk Formula Method can
be used.
8. Record the Re place ment Plant Cost as determined by the Regional Committee or obtain plant
costs from at least three local muserie or regional nurseries or suppliers, and record the median
cost(s) of the plant(s) of the same or comparable
species and ize. It is wise to obtain the cost in
writing if the apprais al might be challenged.
9. Obtain the Installation Cost, which includes
the co t of transporting the p lant(s) to the site,
planting it in the same placement, and monitoring
it dwing the establishment pe1iod, plus the guarantee and profit.
10. Record any other a pprop1iate information.
Calcuf,ations by Appraiser Using Fie/Ji and/or
Regional lnf01mation
11. Add the Replace me nt Plant Cost (#8) and the
Installation C ost (#9) to obtain the Installed
Plant Cost.
12. Multiply the Ins talle d Plant Cost (#11) by the
Species (#2), Condition (#3), and the Location
(#4) ratings to oblain the Adjusted Installed
Plant Cost.
13. If the appraised p lant( ) is to be replaced, add
the Removal & C le anup Costs (#5) to the
Adjusted Installed Plant Cost (#12).
14. The Appraised Value is e ither the Adjusted
Installed Plant C ost (#12) or the Adjusted
Installe d Plant Co t (#12) plus the Re moval
and Cleanup Co ts (#5).
15. If the Appraised Value (#14) is more than $5,000,
roWld it lo the nc~are t $ 100; ro Wld to the nearest
$ 10 if it is le than $5,000 (see Appendix II).
16. Appraised Value = $._ _ __

Worksheet
and
Sample
for the
Replacement
Cost Method

64

Gui<IR for 1'111111 AwmUaJ

Replacement Cost Method

Appraised Value =
[Installe d Plant C os t x Species % x Condition % x Location oO ) +
Removal and Cleanup Cost { if needed)
Installed Plant Cos t = Re placeme n t Plant Cost + Installation Cost
Case# _ _ Property _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Dale _ _ __
Appraiser _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Field Observations
l. Species _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
2. Condition

3. 'Ihmk Circumfe r e n ce _ _ inJcm ancVor Diameter _ _ inJcm or

Shrub or Vine Size (height/: pread/volume) _ _ _ __
4. Loca tion %= (Site _% + Contribution _% + Placement _%).;.
3=_%
5. Re moval and Cle anup Co ts for apprai ed
plant or plant tha t will be replaced

:$._ __

Regional Plant Appraisal Cmmnillee and/or

Appraiser-Developed or -Modified lrifon nalion
6. Species rati11g _ _%
7. Replaceme nt Plant Size (cliametcr) _ _ inJcm

8. Replaceme nt Plant Cos t

= $._ __

9. Installation Cos t

=$_ __

10. Other Regional Infon nation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Calcuwlions by Appraiser Using Field and/or
Regional Infon nalion
11. Installed Plant Cost = Plant Co t (#8) $ _ __
+ Ins talla tion Cost (#9) $

= $._ __

12. Adjusted Ins talled Plant Cos t = Ins talle d Plant

Cost (#ll) $_ _ x Species rating(#6) _ _%x
Condition (lt2) _ _% x Location (#4)_ _%

= $._ __

13. Add Re moval and Cleanup Co ts (#5) (if appraised

plant is replac<.'d). $

= $_ __

14. The Appraise d Value is either #12or #13.

= $_ __

15. If U1<.' Appraise d Value (#14) is $5,000 or more, round

il to U1c nearc t $100; if it is less, round lo n<.'arest $10.
16. Appraised Value (#14) = $._ __
*A m<'dian cosl is I.he most approp1iale cosl lo tl.S(> !x><'ause thrre are an equal number of
costs grealrr than and less than the median. Equally important, plants and installation are
availabl<' at th()S(' specific costs.

Guidefor Pla11t .\ppmi&a/

Replacement Cost Method

Appraised Value =
[Installed Plant Cost x Species % x Condition % x Location %)+
Removal and Cleanup Co t (if needed)
Installed Plant Cost = Replacement Plant Co t + Installation Cost
Case# _ _ Property _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ _ __
Appraiser _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Field Observations
I. Species _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __

2. Condition

3. 'fru.n.k Circumfe rence _ _ inJcm ancVor Diameter _ _ inJcm or

Shrub or Vme Size (heigh If preadlvolume) _ _ _ __
4. Location %= [Site _% + Contribution _% + Placement _%).;.
3=_%

5. Re moval and Cleanup Co ts for appraised

plant or plant that will be replaced

:$._ __

Regional Plant Appraisal Committee and/or

App1nise-1~Developed

or -Modified Infonnation
6. Species rating _ _ _%

7. Re placement Plant Size (diameter) _ _ inJcm

8. Replacement Plant Cost
9. Installation Cost
10. Other Regional Information_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

= $,_ __

=$_ __

Cal.culalions lnJ Appraiser Using Fiel.d and/or

R egional l nJonnalion
11. Installed Plant Cost = Plant Co t (#8) $ _ __
+ Installation Cost (#9) $

= $._ __

12. Adjusted Installed Plant Co t =Installed Plant

Cost (#11) $_ _ x Specie rating (#6) _ _% x
Condition (#'2) _ _% x Location (#4)_ _%

= $._ __

13. Add Removal and Cleanup Costs (#5) (if appraised

plant is replac<.'d). $
14. The Appraised Value is either#l 2 or#13.
15. If the Appraised Value (#14) is $5,000 o r more, round

= $._ __
= $._ __

it to U1c ncarc t $100; if it is le , round to nearest $10.

16. Appraised Value (#14) = $._ __

*A m<.'dian cost is t11e mosl appropriate cost to US<' be<-allS(' 111C're are an equal number of
costs greaL<'r t11an and less t11an tlle median. Equally impo11.ar1t, plants and installation are
available' at tllose pecific costs.

~...------------------11111111111111
ChoJltrr 5: Cost Approach to ~an t Appmisa/

65

E.xample: A 6-in. (l~m) white oak was broken off at the ground by a ln1c k. The
tree to be appraised was rated: Species 8006; Condition 7f1Yo; Site ()((,; Contribution 75%-, Placement 6006. Three tree costs from thrre nm seti es in U1r area werr:
$725, $780, and $820. The Installation C os t was estimated to be $1,900 and the
Removal and Cleanup Costs $120.
Appraised Value

Replacement Cost Method

[Installed Plant Cost x Species % x Condition % x Location % ] +

Removal and C leanup C os t ( if neede d )
Installed Plant Cost =Replaceme n t Pla n t Cos t + Installation Cost

Case # _JJ_ Property

Appraiser U . Clark

R.S. &rowtt, Macott, OH

Date

4/10/99

Field Observations
l. Species Whtte oak !Quercus alba)

2. Condition

70

3. Trunk Circumfe rence _J!_ in./cm ancVor Diameter _ 6_

Shrub or Vme Size (height/spreacVvolume) _ _ _ __
4. Location %= [Site ~% + Contribution
.;. 3 = .ll._%

inJcm or

15 % + Placeme n t Q._%]

5. Removal and Cleanup Costs for appraised

plant or plant that will be replaced

=$

tto

Regional Plant Appmisal Committee arul/or

Appmiset~Developed

:;)

or -Modified lnfornw tion

6. Species rating _!Q_%

7. Replaceme nt Plant Size (diamete r) _ 6_

~
...3

inlcm

8. Replaceme nt Plant Cost

9. Installation Cost
10. Other Regional lnfonnation_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

780
=S 1,900

=$

Calculations by Approis~r Using Pield and/or

Regional Information
11. Installed Plant Cost = Plant Cost (#8) $ 780
+ Ins tallation Cost (#9) $ l.900
12. Adjusted Installed Plant Cost = Ins talle d Plant
Cost (# 11) $ t .680 x Species rating (#6) _!L%x
Condition (#2) _19_%x Location (#4 )__ll_%
13. Add Removal and Cleanup Costs (#5) ( if appraised
planti replaced).$ ttO
14. The Appraised Value is either #12 or #13.
15. If the Appraised Value (#14) is $5,000 or more, round
i l lo the nearest $100; if it is less, round to nearest $10.
16. Appraised Value (# 14) = $
UOO .

=$

=$

t .680

975.St

= $ l.095.St

=$ l,095.5t

..........................111111111111111

rr~

(11a11tl'r 5: Cost Approach to Pl.ant A ppm isal

65

Example: A &-in. (15-<:m) white oak was broken ofT al U1c ground by a truck. The
appraised was rated: Species 8006; Condition WYo; S ite 6m(i; Contribution 75%; Placeme nt 6m6. Three tree costs from U1r<:'e nlU'series in Lhc area were:
$725, $780, and $820. The Installation Cost was c Limated to be $1,900 and U1e
Removal and Cle anup Costs $120.
tJ'e(' to be

Replacement Cost Method

Appraised Value =
[llls talled Plant Cost x Species % x Condition % x Locatio n % ) +
Removal and Cleanup Cos t (if neede d )
Installed Plant Cost = Replaceme n t Plru1t Cost + Installation Cost

Case# _1L Property

~S. &rowtt, Macott, OH

Date

4/t.0/99

Appraiser S.&. Clark

Field Observations

White oak !Quercus alba)

2. Condition
70
%
3. 'frunk Circumfe rence _J!_ inlcm ancVor Dia meter _ 6_
l. Species

inlcm or

Shrub or Vme Size (height/spread/volwne) _ _ _ __

4. Location %= (Site~% + Contribution 15 % + Place me n t !Q..%]
.;. 3 =.il._%
5. Removal and Cleanup Co ts for appraised
= $ 11.0
plant or plant that will be replaced
Regional Plant Appraisal Commit lee an<Vor
Appmise1~Developed or -Modified

6.
7.
8.
9.
LO.

;:::

lnfornwtion

Species rating __..!Q__%

Replaceme n t Plant Size (diamete r) _ 6_ inlcm
Replacemen t Plant Cost
Installation Cost
Oilier Regional lnfo nnation_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

~
=$ 780
=$ 1,900

Calculations by Appraiser Using Pield and/or

Regional Informat ion

l l. Installed Plant Cost = Plant Cost (#8) $ 780

+ Installation Co t (#9) $ 1.900
12. Adjusted Installed Plant Cost = Ins talle d Plant
Cost (# 11) $ 1..680 x Species raling (#6) _!L%x
Condition (#2) ~% x Location (#4)..!l._%
13. Add Re moval and lean up Costs (#5) (if appraised
plant is replaced). $ 11.0
14. The Appraised Value is <:'iilier # 12 or # 13.
15. lf ilie Appraised Value (# 14) is $5,000 or more, round
it to ilie nearest $ 100; if it is less, round to nearest $10.
16. Appraised Value (# l4) = $
1,100 .

=$

1.,680

=$

975.51.

=$
=$

1.095.51.
1.095.51.

66

Guill(' for Pla111 Appra

... differences in
rote of establishment
should he a
consideration in
arriving of the
Appraised Value
of afree.

If several plants or speci are to be appraised, planb

that have the same Installe d Plant Costs and Condition and Location ratings can be combined to simplif)
Appraised Value calculations. However, the Appraised
Value for each p lant that differs by one or more of the
factors must be calcuJated eparately, and then the
Appraised Values added together and the sum rounded
Depending on ize and locality, nursery trees are
bare-rooted, containe1ized, balled and burlapped (B&B).
boxed, or mechanically transplanted. If plants are
available for transplanting in more than one of these
methods, the co t of installing similar-sized trees can
vary considerably. Even the cost of boxed trees varies,
depending on how long the trees have been boxed. A
tree that has been grown in a box for one or two years
will usually establish sooner than a tree of the same
size in B&B, or one that has been planted soon after
being boxed. A B&B or a boxed tree will usually establish sooner than a tree that is mechanically transplanted, depending on the size of the root ball in relation to
the top and the care taken in transplanting. These dif.
ferences in rate of establishment should be a consideration in arriving at the Appraised Value of a tree.
In some areas, a tree may be available for the effort
of transplanting. ln essence, there would be little or no
cost for the tree. This is an alternative means to the
usual way of acquiring replacement trees and should
be used with caution. Such trees may require considerably more care and time to become established; thus,
they may be more co tly.

Adapting Replaceme nt Cost Method to

Unusual Situations
ituations may occur in which plants will be replaced,
but the Replaceme nt Cos t Method is not appropriate unJe
ome adaptations are made. 1\vo possible
ituations are explained b low.

Replacement Cos t of Large Specimen 'frees

In ituations that involve casualties of plants too large to
be considered routinely transplantable and when the
plant owner has invested considerable cost importing
larg specimens onto the site, calculation of replacement
co t may involve ummarizing costs for finding and
purchasing a large pecirne n of similar size along with
the co t of moving that r p lacement plant into the site

Otoplrr 5: Cost Approach to Pl.ant Awmisal

of the casualty. Credible conditions under which this

method would b e use d a re limite d , but they ma y
include settings such as amusement parks or in titutional campuses where large trees are an integral part
of a public display. A key to choosing the use of the
Replacement Cost Me thod in these ases wouJd b
evidence of such a transplant on the s ite p1ior to the
casualty or other evidence of genuine intent to replace
the casualty with a similar plant. In legitimate cases of
large tree replacement, the tree owner is usually familiar with the tree-moving process and is setious about
planning a project in an effort to replace the tree. The
appraisal assignment in these case may include locating the re placement tree, arra n g ing it purc ha e,
as.sembling contractors and other project team members, coordjnating and securing appropriate pennits,
supervising the project, and unde rtaking exte ns ive
aftercare maintenance strategies .

Replacement Following Extensive Tree Loss

An example of adapting an a pprais al me tho d lo an
unusual situation was given by Patric k Buckley, registered consulting arborist., of Do usman, WJSConsin (Buckley 1999). Ile modified the Re place me n t Cost Method
to appraise the value of 421 city street, park, and cemetery trees lost in Waukesha, Wisconsin, dwing a windstorm in May 1998. For trees larger than replaceme nt
size, he estimated the number of transp lantable trees
necessary to r eplace their pre vio us growing space
(Martin 1970). The large t size that couJd be moved
successfully was considered to be 6 in. ( 15 cm) in diameter. AU of the fallen street trees ha d been removed
before the a ppraisal began; there we re photogra phs
and/or video o f ome of the park and cemetery trees.
To in1plify the appraisal, the co t (Installed Plant
Cost; &'e definition on page 61) of an average-priced
species, s uc h as a 6-in. ( 15-cm) Pa tmo re green ash
(Pra.'iinus pennsylvan ica 'Patmore'), planted in quantity and guara nteed, was used for all trees. For each
diameter inc h (2.5 cm) larger than 6 in. (15 cm), $165
($1,000 + G) was added to the cost of a 6-in. tree. The cost
(Inst.ailed Plant Cost) of a street tree was increased up
to a dian1ete r of 18 in. (45 cm) ($1,000 + [ 12 in. x $165))
or $3,000. The Installed Plant Cos t was not increased
above $3,000 becau e 18-in. trees normally reached
the center o f 30-ft (9-m) treets, typical in Waukesha

67

68

Guidi' for Pla11l ,\pJ1l'lli.!al

The lnst.alled Plant Cost of park and cemetel) tree,

was determined on the same basis but was inc~a:le(j
up to trunk diameters of 24 in. (61 cm) or $-1,(XX). Parle
and cemetery tree were usually spaced farther apart
and were considered mor ignificant individually.
The Installed Plant Cos t for each street, park, or
cemetery tree was acljusted by Species, Condition.
and Location on the foUowing base : The appropriate
Species rating for the region was applied to each lost
tree. The American elm (Ubnus americana) was rated
50 percent because of the presence of Dutch elm disease in the area. Marshall seedless green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica var. lanceolata 'Marshall')
was rated 60 percent b cause of serious maintenance
problems. 'free were assigned low Condition rating::;
if they were known to have been overmature, severely
salt-damaged, or hazardous. Location ratings were
assigned depending on the distance a street-tree
replant was planted from the replaced tree (0 to 5 ft =
100 percent, 6 to 15 ft = 90 percent, 16 to 30 ft= 80 percent, not replaced =0 percent). Park and cemetery trees
that were close together were assigned Location ratings
down to 10 percent, depending on the dist.ance apait.
The Installed Plant Cost was based on the trunk
diameter of a 6-in. (15-cm) diameter tree and was
increased proportionately for increases in trunk diameter~ not trunk area An 18-in. (30-cm) diameter tree had
three times the Installe d Plant Cost ($3,000) of a fr
in. (15-cm) tree, even though its trunk area was nine
times larger. A reasonable co t for a "perfect" 18-in. or
larger street tree was considered to be $3,000; the co t
of re identiaJ lots ranged from $30,000 to $55,000.
Because the Condition and Location of most of the
Io t trees could not be individually evaluated, using
trunk diameter instead of trunk area was considered
conservatively approp1iate.
A 36-in. (90-cm) and a 42-in. (105-cm) bur oak
(Quercus macrocm7;a) were appraised at $6,000 and
$7,000, respectiveJy, becau e of the "overpowering
beauty of their immensity" and their historic value.
TI1e city's insurance carri r awarded the city $746,300
for the lo of 421 trees bas d on Buckley's appraisal.
Palms
Palms are commonJy appraised based on a Species
co L according to height of trunk, co t of installation,

Oiaplrr5: Cost Approach to Ptant Appraisal

69

Condition, and Location. Tables including the first

three factors have been published in pr vious editions
of the Guide for Pinnt Appraisal (CTLA 1992). R gional
committees may wish to continue providing such
information. However, appropriate cWTent appraisal
information might best be obtained locally using the
Replacement Cost Method.

Replacement Cost Method for Shrubs,

Hedges, and Vines
The Replacement Cost Method is well suited for
appraising the value of shrubs, hedges, and vines or
the loss due to plant damage or death. In evaluating
the Condition of a shrub or vine, stmcture is seldom
a problem; therefore, with most appraisals, only the
health of the plant should be evaluated. The sum of the
rating.5 would be divided by 20 to obtain the Condition
rating percentage. Usually, not all of the plant are
damaged or lost. In a matwe landscape, some plants
may need to be replaced, others pruned to remove
damaged branches and begin to reestablish form, and
unaffected plants pruned to bring their size closer to
the others to create a more uniform planting. In addition to the loss and the cost to prune damaged as well
as undamaged plants, Lhe planting may require several
years of maintenance to bring Lhe plants near a satisfactory size. Both the loss and a n estimate of the
required maintenance should be assessed.
Compounding th
costs during the period (years to
parity) to bring the plants back to near their original landscape effectiveness may be appropriate ( ee Appendix
I). The rationale for compounding these costs is that
the owner is deprived of full er\joyment of the plants
until they regain their size and complete effectiveness.
Compounding lhes costs compensates for U1e necessary waiting unill the planting regains parity.

Interior Plantings
The Replacement Cost Method can also be used to
detem1ine the value of interior plantings. indoor aftercare maintenanC'e trategies usually take into consideration a high degree of cheduling around public use.

fnamature landscape,

some plants may need

to be replaced, others
pruned to remove
damaged branches and
begin to reestablish
form, and unaffected
plants pruned to bring
their size closer to the
others to create amore
uniform planting.

70

Trunk
Formula

Method

Gui<lr for fflmt A/'P111Ua1

(Please note: The IR does not accept the Tru nk

F01mula Method, or any f ormula, as an appraisal of
Los ; see Chapter 9.)
The Tcunk Formula Method is used to app~
the monetary value of tree considered too large to re
repla ced wit h nur e ry or field-grown stock. Deter
mination of the value of a tree is based on the cost of
the largest commonly available transplantable tree and
its C os t of Installation, plus the increase in ralu
due to the large r s ize of the tree being appraised.
The e values are adjusted according to the Species o
the tree and its physical Condition and landscape
Location (Site, Contribution, and Placement).
The following information is needed to appraise the
value of a tree by the 'Ihmlc Formula Method (see page;
74 and 75):

Fie/,d, Observations
1. The Species of the appraised tree(s).
2. The Condition rating of the appraised tree(s).
3. The Size of the appraised tree(s): the tnmk crosssectional are a 4.5 ft (1.4 m) above the ground.
4. The Site, Contribution, and Placement ratings
for calculating the Location rating.

Regional Plant Appraisal Comm i ttee and/or

Appra iser-Developed or -Modified lnfon nation
5. The Sp ecies rating of the appraised tree(s). Due
to local expe rience with a species, an appraiser
may rate it differently than the Regional Plant
Appraisal Committee.
6. The Replaceme n t Tree Size (TAiJ is the trunk
ar ea (measure ment he ight depends on trunk
diameter) of U1e largest commonly available
lransplantable tree (sec ize, Chapter 4).
7. The Replaceme n t Tcee Cost is the cost of a
tree of Repla c e me n t Tcee Size (#6). (As in the
eighth edition of thl' Gu ide, this Cost can be
who lesale, retail, or installed, as decided by the
Regional Plant Appraisal Conunittee) .
. The Installation Co s t is the cost of installing
a tree of Replacem e n t 'free Size (#6).
9. The lnst.alled 'free Cost is t11e um of the Replacem e n t nee Cost (#7) and the Installation Co t
(#8) of a trne of Replaceme n t Tcee Size (#6).

('haplrr 5: Cost Approach lo Plant Appmisal

10. The Unit Tree Cost is dete1mined by the Regional

Plant Appraisal omrnittee and can b the Wholesale Replacement Tree Cost (#7), the Retail
Replacement Tree Cost (#7), or the Installed
'free Cost (#9) divided by the Replacement Tree
Size (#6), as set by the Regional Plant Appraisal
Committee, or the appraise r may ha ve to determine the Unit Tree Cost.

Calculat ions To Be Made by the Appraiser Using the

Above Information:
11. Calculate or use Tables 4.4 through 4. 7 to determine
the cros.s-sectional area of the trunk (TAA) of the
appraised tree. If the trunk diameter is greater than
30 in. (75 cm), calculate or use Table 4.4 through
4.7 to determin the Adjusted 1hmk Area (ATA,J.
12. Subtract the trunk area of the Replacement
Tree Size (TAR) (#6) from trunk ar a (TAAor
ATAJ (#11) to obtain the Appraised Tree Size
Increase (TA1 ci).
13. Multiply the increase in the size of the apprais d
tree (TA1 R) (#12) by the Unit Tree Cost (#10)
and add the Installed Tree Cost (#9) to obtain
the Basic Tree Cost of the appraised tree.
14. The Basic Tree Cost (#13) is adjusted by the
Species (#5), the Condition (#2), and the
Location (#4) ratings to obtain the Appraised
Value of the appraised tree.
15. lf the Appraised Value (#14) is $5,000 or more,
round to the nearest $100; if it is les.s than $5,000,
round to th near t $10 (see Appe ndix II).
16. Appraised Value (#14) = $_ _ _ __

71

72

Guidrfor Pl.ant AJ1praiJal

Appraised Value =Basic Tree Cost x Species x

Condition %x Location %.
Basic Tree Cost = Trunk Area Increase of
the appraised tr e x Unit Tree Cost +
Installed Tree Cost
Location

=(Site % + Contribution %+
Placement %) 7 3.

= cos t of trans porting the plant to

the s ite, planting it in lhe same placement as the
appraised tree, monitoring it during the maintenance
pe riod, guaranteeing it, and enswing a reasonable profit
Ins tallation Cost

Worksheet
and
Sample
for the
Trunk Formula
Method

Gu i!Lrfor Plant

74

Trunk Formula Method

Case# _ _ Property _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ __
Appraiser _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Fief,d ObsenKllions
1. Species _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
2. Condition
%
3. 'frunk Circwnference _ _ inJcm Diameter _ _ inlcm
4. Location % = [Site _%+ Contribution _% + Placement _%]
+3= _ %
Regional Plant Appraisal Committee and/or Apprai e1cDeueloped
or -Modified Inf01malion
5. Species rating
96
_
_
_
_
inlcm
6. Replacement 'free Size (diameter)
(Trunk Area)
in2/cm2 TAR
7. Re place ment 'free Cost
$ _ __ _
(see Regional W onnation to us Cost selected)
8. Installation C ost
$ _ __ _
9. Installed 'free Cost (#7 + #8)
$ _ __
10. Unit 'free Cost
$
per m2/cm2
(see Regional lnfonnation to use Cost selected)
Calculalions by Appra:iser using Field and Regional Information
11. Appraised 1hmk Area:
(TA~ or ATAA; use Tables 4.4--4.
or ~ (#3) _ _ x 0.08
=
iJ12/cm2
or c[2 (#3) _ _ x 0. 785
--

7)]

12. Appraised 'free 1hutk Increase CTAmc0 =

TAAorATAA _ _in2/cm2(#11)-TAn _ _in2/cm2(#6)=_in2/cm2
13. Basic 'free Cost = TAINCR (#12) _ _in2/cm2 x Unit Tree Cost (#10) $
per in2/cm2 + Installed 'free Cost (#9) $
= $_ _
14. Appraised Value = Basic 'free Cost (#13) $
x Species rating
(#5)_%x Condition (#2) _%x Location (#4)_%= $._ __
15. lfthe Appraised Value is $5,000 or more, round it to the nearest$100; if it
is less, round lo the nearest $10.
16. Appraised Value = (#14) $_ _ __
Items 5 UU"Ough 10 are detennined by U1e Regional Plant Appraisal Committee. The
Wholesale Replaceme nt 'free Cost, U1e Re tail Replaceme nt Tree Co t, or Ule
Ins talled Tree ost (#9) divided by U1e Re placement Tree Size (#6) can be used for
the Unit Tree Co t (# 10), or it can be set by the Regional Plant Appraisal Committee.

CTwptcr 5: Cost Approach to Plan/ Appmisal

75

Example: \\'.hat is ~e Appraise~ Value of an English oak thaL is 15 in. (38 cm)
in diameter, Situated ma front yard m a2l>-year-old upscale rcsiclC'ntial neighborhood.
TI1e Species rating is 75%. The Replacem ent Tree Cost of a 4-in. (10-cm) tree
is S.J8.5 and the Replacement Tree Installation Cost is $1,200. The Unit Tree
Cost is $45). TI1e Condition rating is 8006. The Site, ontribution, and
Placement ratings are: 9006, 8006, and 7006 re pectively.

Trunk Formula Method

Case# _14._ Property
Sill Tury

J.C. White

Vavis. CO

Dal

.fl 199

Appraiser

Field Observations

E.,glish oak IQ.uucus robur)

2. Condition
SO %
1. Species

3. 1hmk Circumference
inlcm Diameter Jf__ inJcm
4. Location %= [Site j2_%+ Contribution lQ..%+ Placement 12.._%)
-:-3=

so %

Regional Plant Apprai al Committee and/or Appraism~Developed

or -Modified Information
5. Species rating
6. Replacement 'free Size (diameter)

ZS
.f

l~
in2/cm2 TAR
('Ih.mk Area)
7. Replaceme nt 'free Cost
$
SSS
(see Regional lnfom1ation to use Cost selected)
8. Installation Cost
$ l.tOO
9. Installed Thee Cost (#7 + #8)
$
17SS
10. Unit 'free Cost
$
.+S
( e Regional Information Lo use Cost selected)

inJcm

pe r in2/cm2

Calculalions by Apprai.se-rusing Field and Regional Information

11. Appraised Tcunk Area:
(TA~ or ATAA; use Tables 4.4-4. 7)
or C' (#3) _ _ x 0.08
or ct2 (#3) _ _ x 0. 785

177 m2/cm2
--

12. Appraised Thee Tcunk Increase (TA1NciV =

TAA or ATAA 177 in2/cm2 (#11)- 'fAR_

l~_in2/cm2 (#6) = 16.f in2/cm2
13. Basic Tcee Cost = TA~rR (#12) ~in2/cm2 x Unit Tree Cost (#10)
$_Ji_ per in2/cm2 + Installed Thee Cost (#9) $ 17SS = $ 9165
14. Appraised Value = Basic 'free Cost (#13) $ 9,16S
x Species rating
(#5) l1_%x Condition (#2) SO %x Location (#4) 10_%= $ U99.ZO
15. lf the Appraised Value is $5,000 or more, round it to the nearest $100; if it
is le , round to the nearest $10.
16. Appraised Value = (#14) $
4':+00

Items 5 through 10 are determined by the Regional Plant Appraisal ommittee. The
Wholesale Re placement Tree Co t, the Retail Replacement Tree Cost, or the
Ins talled Tree ost (#9) di\'ided by the Replacement Tree Size (#6) can be used for
the Unit Tre Cost (# 10), or it can be set by the Regional Plant Appraisal Committee.

76

Cost of
Repair

Method

Cost of Cure

Method

Guidt far Pin t ~ppra

Repairing a damaged plant in a timely and satisfarton

manner may h elp to return the plant to near its fonnf:r
condition. A careful progno is of the plant's ability to
respond to recommende d treatrnent(s) in a reasonable
time is necessary. (Reconunended treatments should be
based on acceptable industry tandarcls, practices. and
research findings). 'Ireatment.s could include-butare iX
linlited tcr-wound treatment, cabling, bracing, prurung,
amending soil, s tump sprout management, inigation.
insect and disease management, improving compacted
soil, and follow-up care. A mature forest can mend itself
faster when s ilvic ultural tactics are employed. These
me thods range from partial removals of competifu-e plants
to leaving seed trees and/o r shrub during a prescribed
management period (see Cost of Cure Met.hod, below).
Specifications for the recommended treatments are
necessary so that a cost estimate can be made by the
appraiser. Estimates s hould be obtained from a qualified
arborist, forester, landscape architect, landscape contractor, nursery professional, o r other appropriate specialis t warranted to develop a reasonable appraisal (Ingram
1993). Depending on the nature of the damage, the circ umstances under wruch it occwTed, and the anticipated time of recovery, additional compensation may
be detem1ined. The amowit of s uch compensation can
be anive d a t by detemlining the compounded cost of
maintenance (see Appendix I). The loss in value of the
damaged plant(s) is needed for calculating this detennina tion. As a comparison , the appraiser could find the
value of the plant(s) by using the Replacement Cost
Me thod or 'frunk Formula Me thod and the percentage lo in value due to the calculated amount of damage. By using comparable m ethods such as percentage
o f trunk formula, plant r eplacem e nt, or another
me thod, th appraiser can be tter defend original repair
procedures, m thodology, and co ts.

Whe n extensive damage has occwTed, including lo

of plants and d truc tion of ancillary features (walks,
roads, d1iv way , land cap e stmctures, and s haped
ten'ain), th treatm nt to re tWTI the property to areasonabl e approximation of its original condition is
known as the Co t of Cure Me thod. Cost of Cure
det mlines the co t of the rep lacem ent and/or repairing

(hnpler5: Cost Approach to Plant Appmisal

77

of plants and restoration of the property to near its

precasualty condition (see Chapter 9) by adding together
Debris Removal and Landscape Structure (hardscape) Restoration Cost, Plant Re placement Cost,
and Plant Restoration and E stablis hment Cost.
Detailed procedure for each of the e three teps
must be followed for the appraiser or oth 1 to estimate the cost (Pi.el.d Forrn Repmtfor Cosl of Cure folders
are available from ISA). All Cost of C ure r commendations to re-create previous use, or intended passive
recreational use, should be based on good judgment,
be practical and reasonable, and, when pos.sible, hould
not exceed the contributory value b for th casualty
(Ingram 1985). Estimates hould be attained by choosing a ingle median quote from several qualified contractors on each relevant Cost of C ure task (ASCA
1997). These same procedures or methodologie can
be used to estimate landscape value in the absence of
a casualty, for example, in an inventory or other situation. Recommendations may include posting "Tree
Preservation Area" igns to cliscow-age any additional
damage; replacing a large plant with one or more smaller
plants; reestablishing damaged plants that are worth
saving; replanting trees, shrubs, flower bed , groundcover, and twi; regrading oil that has been displaced;
rebuilding roads, walks, and/or landscape structures;
and doing whatever el e is necessary lo restore the
property to near its original condition without inllicting
more damage.
Cost of Cure methods should diminish any future
lhreat to a damaged ite. For example, if large, heavy
machine , such as kidders or bulldoz rs, are used to
clear debris on a fragile ite, the ar a could be disturbed
beyond the original scope of damage (Matheny and The previous use or
Clark 1994). In lhis ituation, recommendations may
include cleaiing by hand or regenerating stump prouts. intended use ... of a
Any planting, restoration, or establishment task hould property is important
be designed to restore the site to near its original con- in determining what
dition to maximize its chances for phy ical and ecologlevel of re5foration is
ical renewal.
111e previous use or intended use ( ee hapter 10) reasonable.
of a property is important in determining whal level of
restoration is reasonable. urveys and site plans with
affidavits support an intended use. Tuer can be great
dilieren es in property use. An estate may be extensively
landscaped and maintained with owners in residence

78

Guidr for ff11111 4ppraiJd

who are frequent ho ts to large group of people, or it

may be poorly maintained by owners who show little
interest in their swToundings. The property may be c111
often-used wooded area with hiking trails, camp ites.
picnic areas, and educational displays, or it could be a
remote area with little recreational use or potential.
On large properties, using sample plots can help the
appraiser inventory and place value on a large resourre
(see Field Form Report for Cost of Cure folders, available from ISA). ample plots hould represent imilar
vegetative types and izes, oil, expo ure, and other
factors that influence plant growth (Martin 1970). ite
variability, plant size, quantity, and condition are key
variables in detennining the extent of inventory and
the appropriate number of plots to use for site restoration. On-site plots, representative of the damaged site,
should be selected when the damaged site is so large
that it would be unreasonable to assess 100 percent of
the damage. Off-site plots, representative of the
predamaged site, should be selected when the plants
and/or their remains were totally destroyed or removed
from the damaged site. If the vegetation varies in size,
species, or condition, the number of plots should be
increased. Plot dimensions can be selected that are
suitable for the site as long as the plot is large enough
to include a representative sample of all or a portion of
the vegetation to be appraised (Martin 1970).
Depending on the situation, a property owner may
consider deprivation of the use and/or er\joyment of
the property dwing the time of resto1ing the property
to near its forrner condition. onsequently, the property owner may seek compensation in the form of compound intere t (see Appendix I) or other means as
d termined by negotiation through mediation, arbitration, or appropriate legal action.

De bris Removal and Landscape

Structure Restoration
De bris Re moval and Landscape Structure (hardcape) Re toration Cost may include trunks, tump ,
branch , dead or damaged hrub , contaminated soil,
and landscape strnctures; that is, rock walls, lightning
protection, inigation, and other aspects of a landscape
(Ingram 1993). Repairs should re tore any landscape
tructure to near its precasuaJty condition. The landscap appraiser should elect other strategies for site

(7iaptrr 5: Cost Approach to Plant Appm isal

79

cleanup expenses. Co t should include fee for s uch

tasks as hauling and dumping, costs of landscape structure mate1ials, equipment costs, labor co ts, License
fees and other expenses associated with removing
debris, cleaning the damaged ite, and re toring the
landscape tructures (see Field F01m Report for Cost
of Cure). This methodology also can be useful fore timating landscape structure value in the ab ence of a
casualty for inventory purposes. With other kind o f
landscape structme features, s uc h as paving, walls,
fountains, golf greens, or lighting, the situation may
require more than one specialist (Pierceall 1984). ost
may include hiring a landscape architect to prepare
construction docoo1ents for a complex restoration.
A landscape tructure value may be dete1mined by
evaluating its condition before it wa damaged.
Diminution of a tructure should require the estimate
of a qualified contractor. The appraiser houJd always list
the source o f e timates with names, addre e , and
phone numbers, as appropriate (Means 1999).

Plant Replacement
Plant Replace ment Cost includes prices and installation costs for trees, shrubs, groundcover species, and/
or other vegetative sp cies that have b en damaged or
destroyed. Labor costs for plant replacement may be
affected by revegetation specifications for the damaged sile. The e specifications may include s uch factors as st1i t s hedules, special planting guidelines,
specific planting oil-mix requirements (Craul 1992),
and other p rtin nt considerations. Plant Replacement Cost also lends itself as an alternative method of
placing reasonable values on plants being invento1ied.
Species charact iistics and adaptability coupled with
site condition, that is, soil, expo.sure, and slope, are serious
consideration that hould be thoroughly understood
before an appraiser determine the quantity and ize of
indigenous peci to be replaced. This ecological information also applies to the selection of alternative species
if native plants arc unavailable. If site characteristics arc
!mown, it is po ibl lo develop recommendations for
environmentally sensitive labor techniques and equipment
for planting. For example, on a fragile site, it may be worth
using hand tools such as a planting bar, dibble, mattock,
spade, or tr e-planting h<X> rather than a machine auger
or tree s pade on a truck, especially on steep slopes.

Labor costs for plant

replacement may
be affected by
re vegetation
specifications for
the damaged site.

80

When replodng forge

plants, areasonable
approach is lo plant
asurvivable-sized
plant for asite and
determine the
e5timoted years for
the replacement
plont(s) lo reach on
equivalent size ...

Guulefor Pltr11t Apprul&l/

Young replacement plants have an excellent potential for reestablishing a damaged ite, and they are CO',l
efficie nt. However, while these plants are becoming
established, they need pecial care. The highest loss
rates on a dan1aged site are within the first three year:;
of planting. Mo t of th
Io
can be prevented b~
following an establishment plan that considers cultural.
biological, and/or c hemical tactics.
A re-establishment program consists of many phase,:
proper inigation, mulching, root collar protection, control
of competitive vegetation, pruning, pest management,
and fertilization. Applying water at the proper time, in
the right location, and in the proper amount is the
most critical factor in the survival of replacement YE'getation. Water should be applied both within the original root ball and in the surrounding soil. Both too little
water and too much water are harmful to a replacement plant Moisture levels should be properly monitored, which may include installing ten iometers to
measure oil moisture for specific plant needs. Properly
applied mulch conserves soil moisture and pro,~des
an environment for roots that is similar to forest duff.
Root collar inspections should be done on all replacemen t trees. When soil or mulch contacts the trunk, too
much moisture can be h e ld next to the bark, which
may lead to decline and disease. Pruning at the time of
r placement should be linlited to removal of dead, diseased, dying, and broken linlbs. Dwing planting, however, minor structural pruning may be warranted.
oITective pruning may b a consideration in the future.
A large plant may be replaced by estimating the
number of plants it would take to replace its previous
or c urrent growing space (Martin 1970). Using this
provi ion, remember not to overplant or underplant.
An appraiser's duty is to give thought and attention to
the amolmt and type of plants for replanting. When
replacing large plants, a reasonable approach is to
plant a srnvivable-sized plant for a site and determine
the e timated years for the replacement plant( ) to
reach an equivalent ize (parity). Annual compoWld
intere l fa tors could be used for the total nW11ber of
e timated years for plants to reach parity to detennine
monetary val ue (see Field Fann Report for Cost of
Cul'e). For complex or la rge-scale replanting, fees to
hire a landscape architect may be added to the co t to
pr parC' the contract documents for reconstruction.

~-----------------------~
('haplrr 5: Cost Approach to Plan t Appr(lisal

81

Total Plant Cost may be adjusted by plant condition if plants in the field exhibit a variance in h al th as
compared to the nw ery replacement plants. Plant
condition includes analyzing structural integii ty, current state of health, and health prior to being damaged.
An apprai er s hould be familiar with the normal
appearances and special characte ris tics of plants
before asse ing a Condition rating during an inventocy and/or valuation ( ee Condition, Chapter 4).
Appraised Cost for Plant Replaceme nt is calculated by adding Adjust ed Plant Co s t (column 10)
and Actual Cost to Install together (column 11) (see
Field Form Repo1t for Cost of Cure). Another option
would be to determine Compounde d Appraised
Cost. This option con iders Years t o Parity. Compounded Appraised Cost is calcula ted by adding
Future Plant Cost (column 15), Future In taile d
Cost (column 16), and Future Maintenance Cost
(column 17) together ( ee Field Fan n R eport for Cost
of Cure, Append.ix I, or both).

Plant Restoration and E s tablishme nt

Plant Restoration and Establishme nt depends on
reasonable plans that use methods and procedures
necessary to reestablish a vegetative area to near its
precasualty condition. The appraiser hould develop a
system lo employ one or more methods that over lime
will encourage re-establishment of plants based on the
biological n eds of the species in question.

Prep/anting and/or Restoration and Establishment.

Preplanting, restoration (site preparation), and/or establishment manag ment may include control of undesirable vegetation on a site before and/or after replanting.
The manual cutting, grubbing, mowing of, or applying
herbicides to invasive plants offers a better opportunity The controdor mlJ5f
for newly planted p cie to survive. Find the mo t understand that, for
reasonabl and safe approach to manage invasive plants
every action with fire,
before making r com~m endations.
Seldom do r loration plans recommend the use of there is areaction
controlled burn . Even so, fire can help to diminish
from plant species,
comp titive v g talion before a new planting occurs.
The contractor must understand thal, for every action soil wildlife, and the
with fu'(', there is a r action from p lant species, soil, general area ecology.
wildlife, and the general area ecology.
Before replanting, stabilization procedures are often
required for l p lopes. tabilizalion combines good

82

drainage tactics with ero ion control method to

diminish the loss of oil on a distwi>ed ite. The ad\ice
of a soil specialist or environmental engineer may be
helpful in determining drainage placement and the
amount of required materials. Often, a conserration
service can help de ign a soil tabilization system !ha!
may include culverts, hay bales, landscape fabric
waterbar soil tabilizers, and/or riprap. These system.~
also conserve oil moisture, which helps in establishing replacement vegetation.
Any contaminated oil should be removed in the
debris removal step of Cos t of Cure. After the soil in
the disturbed area has been tabilized, soil samples
that are representative of the entire site should be
taken. Soil sample that are similar to the soil that ma;
be destroyed or lo t on the damaged site may hare to
be acquired off- ite. After analyzing the soil, recommendations should be made to administer macro
micronutrients and/or lost organic matter. Comparable
species may warrant other oil conditions.
Hi.king trails, deer trails, brooks, creeks, and rivers are
just a few example of original recreational features
(Ashbaugh and Kordish 1971). WJ.ldlife nests or dens
may be protected Lo maintain the original integrity of
damaged sites. Displacement of birds and animals could
affect the quality of the swrnunding area
An appraiser may obtain an estimate from an expeit to
establish a plant health care (PHC) program for plant
restoration and e tablishrnent. A PHC program incorporates the implementation of integrated pest management (IPM) and other general plant care, that is, pruning.
fertilizing, etc. IPM use an inspection/treatment strategy that employ biological, cultural, and chemical tactics. These tactics minimize insect and disease damage
to the ite and maximize opp01tunity for plant growth
and overall health. After each inspection/treatment
visit on the ite, an IPM report hould be written so that
th program will be b tter managed and documented.

Plant Removal to Re-Establish and Maintain Planted

Species. After planting, re-e tablishment of the original tree and shrub compo ition and quality can be
achieved by removing competition (that is, tree ,
hrub , and other vegetation of undesirable pecie ,
forms, or conditions) from the understory and main
canopy of a damaged area. To keep undesirable and
nonoriginal specie cut out of an area, a removal

0ii11.1n 5. Cost Avprooch lo Plant Appraisal

sd1edule hould be developed to maximize growth for

replaced \'egetation. It may be advantageous to leav
peripheral iajwed, dominant, co-dominant, intermediate, and uppre ed tree that protect newly planted
species from un and wind (Fowells 1975). As the new
regetation grow larger, le s desirable, previou ly
damaged tree and h.rub could be removed, releasing more desirable plants (see Employing the
helterwood Method to Rejuvenate Plants, page 6).
Selection of plants to be cut hould be bas d on original plant quality and plant density at the time of lo .
Relative plant position and condition before the damage
occurred are important in making removal decisions.

Pruning to Improve Restoration of Plants. Damag d

mature tree should be properly pruned. Excessive
pruning reduces leaf surface area, produces numerous
wounds, and encmrrage watersprouts, which creates
an energy deficit. Pruning hould be limited lo removing damaged, dead, dying, diseased, broken, cro ing
or rubbing branche , and weakly attached branches
because trees in damaged areas often expend energy
on wound clo w and defense from di ease . uch
pruning may be done over two or more years.
Selective Utlnning should be perfonned in damag d
trees only if it nece ary because the crown or leader
is very dense or the tr e is subject to windthrow in a
newly expo ed location. Selective thinning should be
concentrated on branch ends to improve light and air
penetration. Th se branches are most prone to breakage from windtluow.
Crown-reduction pruning mature trees in damaged
areas hould be undertaken only when necessary lo
eliminate branches that may be subject to windth.row.
Crown-reduction pruning may also be necessary to
correct damag or compensate for structural damag .
Cabling and bracing may be considered as alternatives
to crown r duction, pecially if tree are to be left as
eed tree (s c L aving ed Tr es and Shrubs to
Regenerat Plants, pag 84).

Clear Cut to Regenerate Plants. Unde i.rable vegetation

often invade ites that are left fallow. If many years
pass, clear ulling the itc mechanically in combination with oth r il vegetation control measures and
seeding may be an ffective way to reestablish the
original p . ies ( c Pr planting ancVor Re toration

&3

Selection of plants
to be cut should be
based on original
plant quality and
plant density at the
time of loss.

:,)>

~...

...

G11idr for 1'111111 ~/IPfUUal

and Establishment, page 1). Even though somE' J> 1>ple consider clear cutting aesthetically unpleasan~ it
Even though some may be a reasonable, economical, and practical lll<'"&l5
of re-establishing lo t plant (FoweUs 1975). For exampeople consider deor ple, clear cutting and buming may help to regenerate
cutting aesthetically pine specie that need fire to open erotinous con
the ground. The e cone would normally remain
unpleasont, it may on
closed.
be areasonable,
After clear c utting, there may be few remaining
economico/, and species on a site, and natwaJ regeneration may not
prodicol means offer adequate quality, quantity, and/or ctistiibution of
seed to regenerate lo t specie . In this case, sowing seed
of re-establishing is a viable alternative. A eed specialist (such as a hor
lost plants. ticuJtwist, re carch cientist, nw ery professional. or
another profc ional knowledgeable in species regE'neration) can help in planning seed collection; storage
pregem1ina tion treatments, including cold stratification treatment; and sowing. Cost for collecting seed.
storage, sowing, and gennination of U1e same or sinular specie and quality that grew in the damaged arE'a
i a consideration.
Site preparation may involve co ts for soil scarification or deep plowing, depending on a species' root
development characteristic . With certain species and
site limitations, seed could be more reasonably sown
into the remaining duff layer above the soil (Schopmeyer
1974). Seeds of some sp cie , such as birch, may be
broadcast; seeds of 0 U1er pecies, such as oak, may be
drilled using uniform pacing. Often, cost includes
seeded areas being covered wiUl traw or a thin layer
of mulch to protect them from fro t heaving in the
winter and heat and drought in the summer. Ex-penses
hould include a provision to control manunals and
birds that may affect plant wvivaJ. If necessary, a
dan1aged ite should be re eeded until a reasonable
number of plants have revegetated in the area, according to the management plan.

Leaving Seed Trees and Shrubs lo Regenerate Plants. If an

area has b en cut and damaged except for certain trees
and s hrub , the remaining plant could be used as
eed trees or s luub in order to regenerate vegetation
on a dan1aged site. The c tree and shn1bs could furnish eed to re tock U1e da111aged area naturally if t11ey
are well distributed, windfum, and hea!Uly enoug11 nol
to pre ent urueasonable lis k to Ule public or recreatio nal feature (Schopmeyer 1974).

(1iapltT ;_ Cnst. \pproocll to Plant Ammrisal

Knowledge of a species' culture and natural regenerathe qualitie i c1itical when con idcring a cecltrre regeneration plan. With the adv1c o r a for est
grneticist or silviculturist, the appraiser can help determinr if certain seed trees or luub are old enough lo
produce viable seed. Dominant and co-dominant trees
and . hrub with good vigor usually produce the most
abtmdant seed. Mature seed trees in a damaged area
arr relatively intolerant of tress and additional site
change . They are in a delicate balance with their e nvironment. Steps should be considered to tabilize the
ite (see Preplanting ancVor Restoration and E tablishment, page 81).
Dominant and co-dominant seed tree on dan1aged
ites may have been expo ed lo wounding, environmental tress, and insects and disease over a period
of time. Subsequently, on uch sites, wood decay, root
di orders, and othe r truclural deficiencies that
increase the tisk of failures can be problems. The success of eed regeneration depends on U1c pecie ' ability to produce enough fe1tile eed with similar genetic
characteristics to reveg late the damaged area.
Wildlife and weather are two factors that contribute to
sred los (Fowells 1975). The appraiser s hould also
consider the species' ability lo disseminate se d an adequate distance to creat spacing similar lo the lost species.
The seed tree or hrub means of regeneration can
})(' used in combination with any or all of the following
supplemental methods: planting, seeding, slump
sprout regeneration, and the shellenvood method.

Using Stump Sprouts, Root Suckers, and Layered Branches

lo Regenerate Plants. tump sprout regeneration is practical. Mo t of ow second-, third-. and four1J1-generation
fore ls have regrown from stump sprouts (Fowells
1975). Today, managing tump sprouts can be one of ilie
most logical and reasonable methods to use when trying
to regenerate many types of species. Mer cutting, damaged tree hould be evaluated to detennine the appropriatene of the method. Some speci are usceptible
to decay, while other re ist pathogens. It may be more
practic'aJ and reasonable on a steep s lope to use stump
prout r generation instead of trying to replant, which
may cause more cro ion damage.
On a damaged it , if plants were cut in the winter,
most o f the energy l'('Sides in the old root systems. Food
tores in the spring arc lhen transferred from U1e roots

Knowledge of a
species' culture and
natural regenerative
qualities is aitical
when considering o
seed-tree regeneration
plan.

86

Guid<' for Plo111 Apprui.!af

into dormant bud clo e to the ground, re ulting m

fast, large (2 to 5 ft [60 to 150 cm]), first-season, multip1t...
t ern growtl1, d p nding upon the pecies. turnps that
ar e Loo high or cut irr gularly hould be recut \\-;th a
l oping angle d o to the ground (not more than 4 m.
[ l 0 cm I from the grade) to enhance trong, vigorous
growth. After prouting, dominant prout fim1I)
secur d to the tump and ground can be selected for
future trees and/or h.n.1b . After two or three years, a
ingle healthy prout can be elected. ome spec1~
also sprout from old root systems, resulting in uckrr
growth. uckers ar e an excellent means to regenerate
a damaged area. The election tactic that apply to
suck er also apply to twnp prouts.
In addition to managing stump prouts and suckers,
layering low-growing branches by pinning and covering
them with oil to stimulate roots, prouts, and suckers
is an effecti ve mean Lo r egener ate some trees and
many hrubs. Many plant species can be propagated
through cuttings. Plants to con ider for layering and
cutting regeneralion hould be relatively young and
vigorous. Appraisers may solicit the advice of a plant
propagator before r ecommending these practices.

--

c:~

Employing the Shelterwood Method to Regenerate

Plants. sing the hellerwood method in a damaged
area can protect a site and re idual or planted species
from great r futuTe damage. This method gradually
r emove dominant, live, damaged lrees and shrub in a
1ie of steps that extend over a management period
(Fowell 1975). New plants are established before the
older, affected, damaged tree and hrub die or are
r em oved. The shelterwood method is often u ed in
w ooded areas wiU1 plants of the ame size and age
(Fowells 1975). TI1is m ethod is practical when plants
have not b n mortally irtjwed but have incwTed serious dan1age.
Maintaining a table environment on a damaged site
arnw1d old helterwood trees is critical in delaying the
transition from maturity to decline and death. Inspecting,
evaluating, and tr a.ting them, whether they are damag d or not, for struc tural deficiencies that po e an
unr asonable risk of failure (see Condition, Chapter-I)
is another important con ideration.
helte1wood programs must be proactive rather than
r eaclive. Tr atments should be preventive to maintain
h al th and structur rather than remedial after declin<'

0iapttr.i fo,t .\pproai:l1 to P/011/ Appmisol

87

brns. Properly pe1fom1ed cultural practice , including

pnuling. fertilization, pest management, and root-system

protection, can increase the longevity and help maintain

the strurtw-e of helte1wood trees long enough to tablbll replacement plants (see Preplanting ancVor Restoration and E.51.ablishment, page 81). Thorough inspections
should be perfonned after major storms to en ure that
the dedicated helterwood tr es are not damaged. If a
.helterwood tree is dan1aged, it may no longer adequately protect planted or naturally growing r placement specie in the understory.
Shelte1wood dominant and co-dominant trees protect groundcover vegetation, seedlings, aplings, and
other dominant and co-dominant plantings. They conse1w water by casting hade and keeping oil temperatures table for new replace m e nt p lant growth.
helterwood trees are critical to the sun.rival of shadetolerant pecies, for example, northeastern pecie
uch as ugar maple and beech. Shelterwood can be
used with one or more other me thods, such as planting, seeding, seed tree, and tW11p sprout regeneration,
to achieve maxin1um vegetative re ne wal for a damaged site. nly after shellerwood tr e have finished
helping lo e tabli h new plants sho uld a decision be
made lo remove them. Oft n, shelterwood trees that
reestablish their health and vigor can b e left lo prosper.

Actual co ts from one or more re tora.tion and e tablishment methods hould be added together lo determine the P lant Restoration and Establishment
Total Actual Cost. When estab lishing cost, the
appraiser may consider the tin1e it takes for plants lo
reach pa:iity ( e Appendix I).

If ashelterwood
tree is damaged,
it may no longer
adequately protect
planted or naturally
growing replacement
species in the
undemory.

Summary
of Plant
Restoration
and
Establishment
Methods