I must disagree with the dismissive responses so far to this question.

Certainly trees have been through worse. That does NOT make it fine, and Marble should demand satisfaction from the negligent contractor who unnecessarily and without permission damaged this tree - Marble's property - that is ALIVE.

No one here would answer this question in this manner if the contractor had screwed that board into the side of their Mercedes, and left a big old scratch like that. Yet, an automobile would NOT be any less functional given that abuse.

Marble should document every step of this situation, and tell the contractor in writing that compensation is expected, or the project will not receive final payment. Compensation should START with paying for a highly qualified ISA-certified arborist who specializes in IPM and Plant Health Care - not one who is a demolition expert and removes trees for a living. That arborist should then be paid to remove the screw and any other molestation this tree has suffered, and have the additional wound(s) inspected, since I also see bark damage ABOVE the offending board.

I would challenge the HALLETT & Co. comment above about the extent of the damage: "...it didn't go all the way through the bark..." I think any competent plant health care specialist that is superficially knowledgeable about trees would want to personally inspect the extent of this damage - not simply look at a picture - before summarily stating that "...stress to the tree should be minimal..."

No one here knows what caused the very obvious wound(s) to the tree's bark that gouged out a significant portion. Questions to be answered: Was this simply a scrape? Or was this an impact injury? If an impact injury, there can easily be damage through the xylem and phloem behind the bark that is not immediate apparent from a single photo - and the dimensions of such damage can easily be far greater than just the obvious scar. This damage can impair or destroy the ability of this tree to transport nutrients and fluids up and down through the tree's vascular system. The size of the wound shown is at least half the diameter of the tree in length. Circumference = (3.14) x diameter. Not knowing either C or D, I can calculate that more than a sixth of the circumference is compromised. That is not small change when it comes to the function of a twenty year old maple tree.

Consider that this damage has occurred just prior to summer weather, typically the most stressful time in many landscapes when temperatures are higher and rainfall is lower. I don't know where Marble's residence is, but this is a fair assumption. With up to a sixth of this maple tree's vascular system compromised, the tree will have a much more difficult time supporting existing canopy (branches, stems, leaves, flowers, fruit, seeds, forming new buds, and new growth extensions of the normal growing season) than if it had been undamaged. In addition to not being able to normally support itself, this tree will now be much more susceptible to attack by whatever pathogens may be in this environment - insects, fungi, bacteria, etc.

NO! This is not fine, and not acceptable. Marble should demand compensation to determine the extent of damage, and then additional compensation to mitigate this damage that was unnecessarily caused by the completely negligent action of this contractor.