[CANUFNET] Ash tree appraisal - do you discount?

[Jalil Hashemi]

The first question is whether the tree is a candidate for treatment or not.


1.       For ash trees that are physiologically, structurally and economically treatable (for instance for the trees larger than 20 cm. DBH, with good condition rating and less than about 30% die back). I think we should discount the cost of treatment from basic value of the tree.

2.       For trees that are not physiologically, structurally and economically treatable (either size or condition or structure is the constraint), I suggest to consider a new tree replacement cost (minimum 60 mm. caliper) as the value of the tree.

3.       Infested ash trees with EAB should be considered dead.

Thanks,

From: canufnet-bounces at list.web.net [mailto:canufnet-bounces at list.web.net] On Behalf Of Vince Rutter
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 4:06 PM
To: Canadian Urban Forest Network
Subject: Re: [CANUFNET] Ash tree appraisal - do you discount?

I think that you cannot discount the species value because of EAB but you may need to discount the value of the tree by the cost of preventative treatments over a reasonable amount of years.  For example a $5,000 ash tree should perhaps be devalued by the cost of Treeazin treatments over ten years.  If treatments cost $300/2years, the tree's value may be $3,500.

I devalued a birch tree that I assessed to account for cost of treatment to address a bronze birch borer infestation.  Very similar.  Although the report didn't see a court of law it was accepted by the insurance companies.

If there were no treatment options for EAB, it would be a different situation i think.

Vince Rutter, RPF
ISA Certified Arborist
Rutter Urban Forestry LTD.
Thunder Bay Ontario



On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Alex Satel <asatel at ufis.ca<mailto:asatel at ufis.ca>> wrote:
Hi all,

A question for anyone who is involved in preparing/reviewing CTLA-based appraisals (e.g., trunk formula method) of ash trees: How have you considered Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) in your valuations of healthy looking ash?

It would be interesting to see if there is some consensus about how to proceed; should we start discounting the species ratings because ‘all ash are doomed’? Or should we still consider each tree on its individual merits and outwardly-visible condition, even though it may already be infested and not yet showing symptoms? How do we account for the fact that many (if not most) ash trees will become liabilities once infested/dead?

Personally, I am somewhat hesitant to start discounting still-healthy trees because of susceptibility to a pest (after all, many elms have survived), but it is generally accepted that we will lose most of our urban ash trees, and this may be fair to consider that when assessing value.

Any thoughts and experiences would be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards,

Alex

Alex Satel, MFC
ISA Certified Arborist ON-1353A
Urban Forest Innovations Inc.
1248 Minnewaska Trail
Mississauga, ON  L5G 3S5
T: (905) 274-1022<tel:%28905%29%20274-1022>
asatel at ufis.ca<mailto:asatel at ufis.ca>
www.urbanforestinnovations.com<http://www.urbanforestinnovations.com/>
[Description: UFI new logo very small]




--
Vince Rutter, RPF
ISA Certified Arborist
www.rutterurbanforestry.ca<http://www.rutterurbanforestry.ca>
807-627-6201

Jalil Hashemi, RPF
Supervisor, Forest Protection
Parks and Open Space
Town of Oakville | 905-845-6601 ext.3848 | f: 905-338-4227 | www.oakville.ca<http://www.oakville.ca/>

[cid:image82218b.JPG at 80755e41.4aa81edc]
Vision: To be the most livable town in Canada
ü Please consider the environment before printing this email.
http://www.oakville.ca/privacy_statement.htm

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20120206/9311b43d/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3338 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20120206/9311b43d/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image82218b.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2338 bytes
Desc: image82218b.JPG
URL: <http://list.web.net/pipermail/canufnet/attachments/20120206/9311b43d/attachment-0001.jpeg>