Summary of Tree Valuation Based on CTLA Approach

Similar documents
Tree Identification Topics: Original Bearing and Line Trees

Environmental Benefits Analysis of Public Trees for Chillicothe, Ohio

Benefits of Goshen s Public Trees. Stormwater Mitigation

Environmental Benefits Analysis of Trees for The Ohio State University, Columbus Campus

STRATUM: The who, what, when, where and how of street trees

Landscape Plan Specifications

Determining the Age and Benefits of a Tree

APPENDIX 2 -- EASTERN U.S. SITE-TREE SELECTION CRITERIA AND FIA FOREST TYPE ALGORITHM FOR THE U.S. EASTERN U.S. SITE-TREE SELECTION CRITERIA

Assessment of the Benefits of Ecosystem Restoration with i-tree Eco

INGHAM CONSERVATION DISTRICT SPRING 2016 TREE SALE ORDER FORM All proceeds benefit conservation stewardship efforts in Ingham County

Plant Disease Update 2014

Forestry CDE Senior Division Area Contest KEY 2014 True or False On the bubble sheet, mark A for True statements and B for False statements

Landowner: PRE/POST Treatment Assessment Tally Sheet. Area: Prism Plot BAF = 2 Assessor: Stocking Plot Radius = 1.36 m (or 1/1736th ha) Date: # Plots

Planning Field Shelterbelts for the Prairies

Table 1 below details the species, size and condition of the trees presently on the property.

FIELD ENHANCEMENT 2. Forest Mapping

Sheffield City Highways Tree Survey

Milwaukee County Emerald Ash Borer Preparedness Plan. Compound Leaf with 7 toothed leaflets. WDNR Photo by Renee Pinski

2016 Urban Forest Analysis within Three Parks in Burlington, Vermont

TEMPERATE FORESTS Ed Jensen, College of Forestry, OSU. Temperate Deciduous Forests

Minnesota Forestry Research Notes Published by the Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul

Kansas Forest Health Highlights 2014

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO MISSISSAUGA TREE INVENTORY

SPECIES RATING GUIDE FOR TREES IN NORTH DAKOTA

TREE SELECTION FOR DROUGHT RESISTANCE

MU Guide PUBLISHED BY UNIVERSITY EXTENSION, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA

TREE SURVEY REPORT FOR BELFAST CASTLE & CAVEHILL COUNTRY PARK. Tree survey carried out by Viliam Krupa ISA certified Arborist

Fax: (613) January 16, 2015 L3R 1R2. Dear David, by the City permit to. remove the. will be lost. Table 1. Tree No. 1. D.B.

ORMCP Technical Paper 7 Identification and Protection of Significant Woodlands

Bismarck Forestry Division Arboricultural Specifications and Standards Of Practice

PART 8: CULTIVATED TREE ON THE AVALON PENINSULA

Project Report The Importance of Trees in Biodiversity

Page 1. 1 An excerpt from the Executive Summary of Urban Trees and Forests of the Chicago Region written collaboratively by

BOULDER RIDGE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES (ESTATE LOTS) Revised June 2012

City of INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA

P.E.I. Public Forests

nventory and Ana ysis Unit's

SUBJECT: Charter Amendment vs Tree Ordinance (Chapter 656 Part 12) Guideline for Site Clearing/Tree Removal Permit Application

Horace Greeley High School Biodiversity Assessment

Tree Unit Replacement Proposal. DRAFT by Julie Weinstein

Keep Indianapolis Beautiful

City of Kingston Tree By-Law Guidelines

CITY CLERK. Removal and Injury of Private Trees - 8 Spadina Road (Trinity-Spadina, Ward 20)

P.E.I. Public Forests

Assessing Urban Forest Effects and Values: Douglas County, Kansas

Winter Tree ID! Use this interactive dichotomous key to help you identify and learn more about the tree species found around Upham Woods!

RESTORING OLD-GROWTH FEATURES TO MANAGED FORESTS IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO

Firewood Ratings and Info

Forestry. A Big Thanks

EC Guide to Community Forestry Planning

St. Olaf College. Natural Lands Ecology Papers. Forest composition comparison in two maple-basswood sites on St Olaf s natural lands.

IMPORTANCE OF A COMMUNITY TREE PROGRAM: A Guide to Starting and Sustaining a Street Tree Planting Program

Edge Forest Community Analysis Brad Dotson Altoona High School Field Research,

GIS /CAD Project Workflow

DATE: Booklet: 4.125" w x 5.25" h closed 8.25" w x 5.25" h open Base: 4.724" w x 5.25" h. Plant Growth Regulator for Trees

Proposed Lee Street School

Autumn Blaze Freeman Maple

SAVE ENERGY WITH TREES HOME ENERGY GUIDE

EC1700 Clarke-McNary Seedling Tree Application Blank and Information

Income Possibilities from Farm Woodlots. Lenny Farlee, Extension Forester

Abstract. Contents. Wood, K.A.; Poulson, A.M.

Characteristics of Five Climax Stands in New Hampshire

ACTUAL CHALLENGES IN FOREST MANAGAMENT

Natural Area Mapping and Inventory of Claremont Park 2011 Survey

Seedling Tree Order Deadline is March 10, 2017

Appendix B: Site Index Curves for Selected Tree Species. Interpreting Site Index Curves

DOGWOOD HILLS TREE FARM

Plainfield Public Tree Inventory Report

Chicago Urban Forest Management: State of Chicago s Street Trees. Joseph McCarthy, Senior City Forester Bureau of Forestry November 14, 2016

Mechanical Properties of Wood

Contents Land Care Practices vii The Woods in Your Backyard Putting Your Knowledge to Work Appendices Ecological Principles

Tree Conservation Report 1960 Scott Street, Ottawa, Ontario

MANAGED FOREST LANDS STEWARDSHIP FORESTRY PLAN

Leachable Phosphorus Levels of Urban Street Trees: Contributions to Urban Runoff

Conservation Trees and Shrubs

Addressed in This Presentation. Tree Montgomery: A Free Shade Tree Planting Program. Itree. Benefits of Trees 6/1/2016

Flight 93 National Memorial Reforestation Project (Phases I-IV)

Department D Environmental Education & Earth Sciences Division 320 Forestry

Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan

Characterizing Planted Tree Survivorship in the Asian Longhorned Beetle Quarantine Zone in Worcester, Massachusetts

TREE PROTECTION (no.) CODE 990

Forestry Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Simulating Regeneration Dynamics in Upland Oak Stands

Species Settings Questions & Answers. for Wagner Meters Models: MMC 205 MMC 210 MMC 220

Forensic Forestry Reading the Land

INTENSIVE GROUP SELECTION SILVICULTURE IN CENTRAL HARDWOODS AFTER 40 YEARS I. Leon S. Minckler 2

The Ups and Downs of Final Harvests*

Town of Red Hook Forestry Management Plan

Urban & Community Forestry!

Natural Communities of Clay Soils in the Lake Champlain Basin

TREES AND ICE STORMS THE DEVELOPMENT ICE STORM RESISTANT URBAN TREE POPULATIONS

fungi perfecti Mushroom Plug Spawn for Log and Stump Cultivation

CITY OF DELAWARE SHADE TREE COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL 1 SOUTH SANDUSKY STREET 7:00 P.M. AGENDA

Emerald Ash Borer Program County of Simcoe Municipal Workshop

Tree Planting Advice

Allen W. Bratton. For practically every commodity--beef, wool, grains, hides, lard, milk, eggs, etc.--there are standard grades based on quality.

CLIMATE CHANGE INDUCED VEGETATION SHIFTS IN EUROPE

Re: 105 Avondale Court and 143 Bluewater Place, Burlington Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan

Ontario Hardwood Overview. Hardwood Tour Oct.19-21

Arbor Day. Tree Sale. 18th Annual

Transcription:

Summary of Tree Valuation Based on CTLA Approach Trees in cities and communities have mainly been planted for beauty and to provide shade. Lately, many other values, such as environmental and economic benefits have been recognized. The less tangible aesthetic value of trees and the value they add to the property are realized mostly by the owners. The aesthetic value of trees is very subjective and difficult to measure. However, the economic value of trees can be estimated by their impact on property value. Research shows that the value trees add to a particular property ranges from 15 % to 25 % of the total value. Approximately 15% of the house and lot price (CLTA 1992) may be related to tree value. Petit et al. (1995) quote developers who estimate that the amount could be between 20% and 30%. Each tree and shrub has a monetary value that represents its replacement cost. A number of different formulae can be used to calculate the appraised value of a tree. In this report, the estimated value of trees is determined using an approach by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA1992). This procedure calculates a value based on crosssectional area at DBH. This value is calculated using the current value of trees available for transplanting. This basic price is then adjusted for species, tree condition and location. It should be noted that the objective for this report is to determine a conservative value based on average conditions. The approach applied here may overestimate some trees, but will also underestimate others. It will, nonetheless, yield a credible value for all the trees in the community, or for a group of trees, but should not be used for individual tree valuation. It should be noted that the objective for this report was to determine a conservative value based on average conditions. The approach applied here, may over-estimate some trees but will also under-estimate others. It will yield a credible value for all the trees in the community, or for a group of trees but should not be used for individual trees valuation. 17-Jan-03 E - 1

Tree Value Based on CTLA Approach The value of trees by ownership in the community is shown in Figure 24. The value of community trees summarized by ownership is shown in Table 7. Figure 25 shows the value of community trees by street. Figure 25. Tree value based on CTLA by the ownership Privately owned 38% City owned 23% Ownership not available 8% Joint ownership 31% Table - 7. Tree Value based on CTLA approach on public and private land Street Tree Value Proportion of Total Value of Community Trees City owned Bowden Hampton Hogarth Hopedale Minton Pl. Pepler Av Rivercourt Blvd $1,041.56 0.125% $4,318.19 0.518% $34,486.18 4.134% $6,996.63 0.839% $4,186.36 0.502% $18,339.91 2.199% $124,561.17 14.933% $86,296.00 10.346% E - 2

Table - 7. Tree Value based on CTLA approach on public and private land Street Tree Value Proportion of Total Value of Community Trees Sumach St City owned $36,001.31 4.316% $36,098.43 4.328% $352,325.73 42.24% Joint ownership Joint ownership $1,891.73 0.227% $14,625.81 1.753% $16,517.53 1.98% Ownership not available Rivercourt Blvd Ownership not available $169.78 0.020% $169.78 0.02% Privately owned Bowden Hampton Hogarth Hopedale Minton Pl. Pepler Av Rivercourt Blvd Sumach St Privately owned Total Value of of All Trees: $1,690.98 0.203% $62.73 0.008% $34,944.06 4.189% $34,093.20 4.087% $30,919.21 3.707% $22,362.91 2.681% $89,665.11 10.750% $102,199.57 12.252% $62,612.08 7.506% $86,565.92 10.378% $465,115.76 55.76% $834,128.81 E - 3

Tree Value Based on CTLA Approach on Private Land Table - 7a. Tree Value based on CTLA approach on private land Street Tree Value Proportion of Total Value of PrivateTrees Bowden Hampton Hogarth Hopedale Minton Pl. Pepler Av Rivercourt Blvd Sumach St Privately owned Total Value of of All Trees: $1,690.98 0.364% $62.73 0.013% $34,944.06 7.513% $34,093.20 7.330% $30,919.21 6.648% $22,362.91 4.808% $89,665.11 19.278% $102,199.57 21.973% $62,612.08 13.462% $86,565.92 18.612% $465,115.76 100.00% $465,115.76 E - 4

Tree Value Based on CTLA Approach - City and Jointly Owned Trees Table - 7b. Tree Value based on CTLA approach for city and jointly owned trees Street Tree Value Proportion of Total Value of Public/Joint Trees Bowden Hampton Hogarth Hopedale Minton Pl. Pepler Av Rivercourt Blvd Sumach St City owned Joint ownership Total Value of of All Trees: $1,041.56 0.282% $4,318.19 1.171% $34,486.18 9.350% $6,996.63 1.897% $4,186.36 1.135% $18,339.91 4.972% $124,561.17 33.771% $86,296.00 23.396% $36,001.31 9.761% $36,098.43 9.787% $352,325.73 95.52% $1,891.73 0.513% $14,625.81 3.965% $16,517.53 4.48% $368,843.27 E - 5

Value of Community Trees by Streets Based on CTLA Approach Figure - 25. Value of trees summarized by streets (more than $ 50 000) $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 Hogarth Rivercourt Blvd Sumach St E - 6

Value of Trees by Diameter Classes Based on CTLA Approach The value of a single tree is related to its size, condition, location and species rating. A few trees left on a lot that is being developed may add thousands of dollars to the site's property value. Furthermore, a healthy tree in an urban area may be worth twenty-five times its rural counterpart (Moll 1989). The value of trees, by diameter class, is shown in Figure 26.The cumulative values of all species represented in the community have been estimated based on the CTLA approach, and shown in Table 8. The ten species with maximum cumulative values are shown in Figure 27.Similarly, values of all genera represented in the community are shown in Figure 28 and Table 9. Figure - 26. Value of trees in each diameter class based on CTLA approach $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 1 2 3 4 5 6 E - 7 Diameter classes 1-0-15.5cm 2-15.6-30.5cm 3-30.6-45.5cm 4-45.6-60.5cm 5-60.6-76.5cm 6- >76.6cm

Value of Species Based on CTLA Approach (sorted by species) Figure - 27. Top ten species values based on CTLA approach $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 American Elm Black Locust Common Horsechestnut Norway Maple Norway Spruce Siberian Elm Silver Maple Tree of Heaven White Mulberry White Oak Table - 8. Species values based on CTLA approach sorted by species Common name Species Value Proportion of Total Value of Community Trees Alder Buckthorn American Beech American Elm Apple/Crabapple sp. Austrian Pine Basswood Black Locust Black Walnut Blue Beech Cherry (Fruit) Choke Cherry Colorado Spruce Common Horsechestnut Crack Willow Eastern White-Cedar English Oak European Beech $118.09 0.01% $5,177.89 0.62% $14,776.62 1.77% $2,737.27 0.33% $5,496.68 0.66% $9,696.37 1.16% $21,067.07 2.53% $14,114.91 1.69% $1,526.10 0.18% $3,644.58 0.44% $460.49 0.06% $13,840.20 1.66% $14,849.43 1.78% $4,244.25 0.51% $11,385.53 1.36% $1,763.51 0.21% $7,541.69 0.90% E - 8

Table - 8. Species values based on CTLA approach sorted by species Common name Species Value Proportion of Total Value of Community Trees European Hornbeam Ginkgo Gray Birch Honey Locust Japanese Maple Little-Leaf Linden London Plane Manitoba Maple Northern Catalpa Norway Maple Norway Spruce Paper Birch Red Maple Red Oak Red Pine Red/Green Ash Scot's Pine Showy Mountain-ash Siberian Elm Silver Maple Sugar Maple Tree of Heaven Upright Japanese Yew White Mulberry White Oak White Pine White Spruce Total Value of Trees: $207.86 0.02% $2,098.54 0.25% $1,595.86 0.19% $9,142.05 1.10% $2,733.24 0.33% $8,990.61 1.08% $2,152.28 0.26% $14,222.22 1.71% $10,542.68 1.26% $383,392.74 45.96% $15,293.13 1.83% $12,448.18 1.49% $1,306.37 0.16% $8,014.56 0.96% $5,333.77 0.64% $14,290.80 1.71% $1,155.46 0.14% $6,211.20 0.74% $15,263.17 1.83% $113,657.87 13.63% $3,908.49 0.47% $14,576.78 1.75% $586.13 0.07% $21,645.07 2.59% $15,954.30 1.91% $8,398.96 1.01% $8,565.84 1.03% $834,128.81 E - 9

Value of Species Based on CTLA Approach (sorted by value) Table - 8a. Species values based on CTLA approach sorted by value Common name Species Value Proportion of Total Value of Community Trees Norway Maple $383,392.74 45.96% Silver Maple $113,657.87 13.63% White Mulberry $21,645.07 2.59% Black Locust $21,067.07 2.53% White Oak $15,954.30 1.91% Norway Spruce $15,293.13 1.83% Siberian Elm $15,263.17 1.83% Common Horsechestnut $14,849.43 1.78% American Elm $14,776.62 1.77% Tree of Heaven $14,576.78 1.75% Red/Green Ash $14,290.80 1.71% Manitoba Maple $14,222.22 1.71% Black Walnut $14,114.91 1.69% Colorado Spruce $13,840.20 1.66% Paper Birch $12,448.18 1.49% Eastern White-Cedar $11,385.53 1.36% Northern Catalpa $10,542.68 1.26% Basswood $9,696.37 1.16% Honey Locust $9,142.05 1.10% Little-Leaf Linden $8,990.61 1.08% White Spruce $8,565.84 1.03% White Pine $8,398.96 1.01% Red Oak $8,014.56 0.96% European Beech $7,541.69 0.90% Showy Mountain-ash $6,211.20 0.74% Austrian Pine $5,496.68 0.66% Red Pine $5,333.77 0.64% American Beech $5,177.89 0.62% Crack Willow $4,244.25 0.51% Sugar Maple $3,908.49 0.47% Cherry (Fruit) $3,644.58 0.44% Apple/Crabapple sp. $2,737.27 0.33% Japanese Maple $2,733.24 0.33% E - 10

Table - 8a. Species values based on CTLA approach sorted by value Common name Species Value Proportion of Total Value of Community Trees London Plane $2,152.28 0.26% Ginkgo $2,098.54 0.25% English Oak $1,763.51 0.21% Gray Birch $1,595.86 0.19% Blue Beech $1,526.10 0.18% Red Maple $1,306.37 0.16% Scot's Pine $1,155.46 0.14% Upright Japanese Yew $586.13 0.07% Choke Cherry $460.49 0.06% European Hornbeam $207.86 0.02% Alder Buckthorn $118.09 0.01% Total Value of Trees: $834,128.81 E - 11

Value of Genera Based on CTLA Approach Figure - 28. Value of genera based on CTLA approach Apple/Crabapple Ash Beech Birch Black Locust Buckeye/Horsechestnut Buckthorn Catalpa Cedar (Thuja) Cherry/Plum Elm Ginkgo Honey Locust Ironwood-Hornbeam Linden-Basswood Maple Mountin Ash/Whitebeam Mulberry Oak Pine Plane-Sycamore Spruce Tree of Heaven Walnut/Butternut Willow Yew Table - 9. Genera value based on CTLA Approach Genus Genera Value Proportion of Total Value of Community Trees Apple/Craba Ash Beech $2,737.27 0.33% $14,290.80 1.71% $12,719.58 1.52% E - 12

Table - 9. Genera value based on CTLA Approach Genus Genera Value Proportion of Total Value of Community Trees Birch Black Locust Buckeye/Hor Buckthorn Catalpa Cedar (Thuja Cherry/Plum Elm Ginkgo Honey Locust Ironwood-Ho Linden-Bass Maple Mountin Ash/ Mulberry Oak Pine Plane-Sycam Spruce Tree of Heav Walnut/Butte Willow Yew Total Value: $14,044.04 1.68% $21,067.07 2.53% $14,849.43 1.78% $118.09 0.01% $10,542.68 1.26% $11,385.53 1.36% $4,105.07 0.49% $30,039.79 3.60% $2,098.54 0.25% $9,142.05 1.10% $1,733.96 0.21% $18,686.98 2.24% $519,220.93 62.25% $6,211.20 0.74% $21,645.07 2.59% $25,732.37 3.08% $20,384.87 2.44% $2,152.28 0.26% $37,699.18 4.52% $14,576.78 1.75% $14,114.91 1.69% $4,244.25 0.51% $586.13 0.07% $834,128.81 E - 13