Proposed Lee Street School

Transcription

1 Proposed Lee Street School Tree Conservation Plan City of Guelph Prepared for: Upper Grand District School Board Project Number: AA12-23A Date: September 18, 2012

2 591 Woolwich Street Guelph. Ontario N1H 3Y5 September 18, 2012 T: F: Our File No: AA12-23A URBAN FORESTRY ARBORIST REPORTS MANAGEMENT PLANS TREE PRESERVATION PLANS TREE RISK ASSESSMENT GIS TREE INVENTORIES TREE APPRAISALS MONITORING ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION NATURAL SYSTEMS DESIGN HABITAT RESTORATION EDGE MANAGEMENT PLANS RAVINE STEWARDSHIP PLANS NATURALIZATION PLANS INTERPRETIVE DESIGN MONITORING CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION Jennifer Passy Manager of Planning Upper Grand District School Board 500 Victoria Road North Guelph, ON N1E 6K2 Re: Tree Conservation Plan Lots 1 to 17 and Part of Lot 18 Proposed Lee Street School City of Guelph ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES SUBWATERSHED STUDIES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS ECOLOGICAL LAND CLASSIFICATION WETLAND EVALUATION VEGETATION ASSESSMENT BOTANICAL INVENTORIES WILDLIFE SURVEYS MONITORING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE MASTER PLANNING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL HEALTHCARE AND EDUCATION STREETSCAPES PARKS AND OPEN SPACES TRAIL SYSTEMS GREEN ROOFS CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION Dear Ms. Passy: We have completed our study of the above referenced project. This report summarizes our methodology, findings and recommendations. The following attached documents are part of this investigation. Appendix 1 Tree Inventory and Assessment Methodology Appendix 2 Detailed Tree Data Appendix 3 Limitations of Tree Assessment Drawing TCP-1 Tree Conservation Plan EXPERT OPINION OMB TESTIMONY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS PEER REVIEW RESEARCH EDUCATION 1

3 Jennifer Passy, Upper Grand District School Board September 18, 2012 Tree Conservation Plan: Proposed Lee Street School, City of Guelph Background The Upper Grand District School Board (UGDSB) is proposing the development of a new school fronting Lee Street at the southeast corner of the Lee Street and Cityview Drive North intersection. Aboud & Associates was retained to investigate all trees required for study as per requirements of the City of Guelph. Trees assessed during the investigation considered priorities for preservation were identified and this information was conveyed to the project team. These priority trees would be protected from grading encroachments and other construction disturbances for integration into the final school yard design, where feasible. Context The subject property is located on the south side of Lee Street between Cityview Drive North (west) and Lee Street Park (east). There are 7 residential lots adjacent to the west side of the site. The land to the south is undeveloped and occupied by mostly tree and shrub thicket adjacent to the subject property. Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris) plantation and immature coniferous woodland dominated by White Cedar occupies the east side of the site and marsh dominates the west side. The site is vacant of any structures. Methodology The City of Guelph currently has Draft Tree Protection Policies and Guidelines (June 2008) for the preparation of a Tree Conservation Plan. Trees that met the following criteria qualified for detailed individual investigation in this study. On-site trees with a DBH (diameter at breast height) of 10cm or greater; and Off-site trees with a DBH of 10cm or greater where the dripline extends to within 1 metre of the subject property boundary. Trees found within vegetation communities (i.e. hedgerows, woodlands and plantations) that were not individually surveyed were combined in numbered tree groups. For the groups, the following data were collected: Tree species. Two (2) size groups using diameter at breast height (DBH): 10-30cm (immature) and >30cm (mature). Ranges of biological health, structural condition and tree quality. Fieldwork for this investigation was conducted on March 16 and 19, Fieldwork and tree condition assessment and analysis were conducted by Kevin Butt, Certified Arborist, International Society of Arboriculture. All individual trees were identified on the survey prepared by Black, Shoemaker, Robinson & Donaldson Limited O.L.S. dated December 15, This survey, combined with the conceptual site plan prepared by Zas Architects (August 2012) were used to determine anticipated impacts to trees from the proposed site development for the purpose of assigning recommendations of preserve or remove to the subject trees. Locations of individual trees at the south portion not included in the survey (Tree # s 31 to 48) and extents of tree groups were estimated using aerial photography and onsite verification. 2

4 Jennifer Passy, Upper Grand District School Board September 18, 2012 Tree Conservation Plan: Proposed Lee Street School, City of Guelph Trees that met the above-mentioned criteria were assigned a unique number and the following data was collected. species (botanical and common names) diameter at breast height - DBH (cm) height (est. in metres) crown reserve (tree crown diameter, est. in metres) biological health structural condition tree quality recommendation based on health & structure recommendation based on development impacts final recommendation observations / comments A description of assessment methods and definitions of codes of observations are provided in Appendix 1. The tree data and tallies of tree groups are provided in Appendix 2. An explanation of what is reasonable and possible in typical tree assessments is provided in Appendix 3 Limitations of this Tree Assessment. Findings and Recommendations A total of 48 trees were individually inventoried and assessed. The remaining trees, represented by 425 individual trees, were collected into 5 tree groups. The largest tree group, TG#1 is a Scots Pine plantation. It contains 313 trees subject to the City s tree policy (i.e. 10cm or greater). The other two onsite tree groups are immature woodlands. Two tree groups (TG # s 4 and 5) located immediately west of the site, on private property, are hedgerows of mixed species. Details of measurements, biological health and structural condition of individually assessed trees, or ranges of these factors for tree groups are included in the detailed assessment provided in Appendix 2. Trees Recommended for Preservation Priority trees recommended for preservation are onsite, shared or public tree # s 5, 7, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 29, 30 and 46. These are moderate to high quality specimen trees that will compliment the future school site with screening, shade and landscape amenity. Additional individually assessed trees that will be preserved are: Onsite tree # s 3, 6, 8, 9, 26, 27 and 28; Shared tree #10; and Offsite tree # s 36 Portions of Tree Group #1 may be preserved. The detailed grading plan (not part of this submission) will determine the extent of tree preservation that is possible in this group. Locations of Tree Protection Fence for delineating preserved portions will be refined at the Site Plan stage. Further management of trees in the group may include crown raising, deadwood removal, clearance pruning and/ or thinning of individuals within the preserved portions of these tree groups. This management is recommended to: Improve pedestrian access through the schoolyard and Lee Street Park connection; Enhance safety for students; and 3

5 Jennifer Passy, Upper Grand District School Board September 18, 2012 Tree Conservation Plan: Proposed Lee Street School, City of Guelph Promote condition of remaining trees with moderate or high tree quality. Offsite Tree Group # s 4 and 5 will also be preserved. Tree Protection Fence will be installed onsite to delimit Tree Protection Zones. Tree Protection Zones are generally defined as the dripline (i.e. crown reserve) of protected trees. No grading encroachments (cut or fill) or disturbance should occur within the Tree Protection Zones. Further analysis of the feasibility of tree preservation will be carried out at the Site Plan stage. Construction of a sidewalk along Lee Street, stormwater and servicing requirements and site grading may determine that additional trees must be removed. Trees Recommended for Removal Onsite trees recommended for removal to accommodate the grading of the site and construction of the school building and yard are: Individual tree # s 21 24, 31 35, 37 45, 47, and 48, and Tree Group # s 2 and 3. Onsite tree #4 is dead and is recommended for removal. The City is undertaking the realignment of the intersection of Lee Street and Cityview Drive. City-owned tree # s 1, 2, 13, 14, 15 and 16 will be removed to accommodate this road work. The construction of the school is not dependent on the preservation or removal of these 6 trees. Grading plans for road construction were reviewed during the preparation of this tree conservation plan and no impacts to trees on the school board lands are anticipated. Additional Notes: The following points address requirements of Section 2.1 of the Draft Tree Protection Policy (City of Guelph, June 2008). None of the tree species recorded in this study are considered significant, locally (R1, R2, or R3) 1 or provincially (S1, S2, S3) 2. The west portion of the property is regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority due to the wetland. Approval for the wetland has been granted. None of the trees identified for removal are recommended for relocation. No supplemental watering of retained trees is recommended (i.e. no watering schedule is provided). Table B (below) lists the pruning schedule of all retained trees (onsite, offsite and shared trees). All pruning must be carried out by a certified arborist of a qualified tree service. Table B. Pruning Schedule of Retained Trees Task Dead limbs of shared and offsite trees overhanging the subject property to a minimum diameter of 40mm Limbs damaged during course of construction Time to Execute Prior to installation of Tree Protection Fence Immediately following damage 1 Frank, R. and Anderson A The Flora of Wellington County. Wellington County Historical Society. Fergus, ON. 2 FOIBIS website (accessed September 7, 2012) 4

6 Jennifer Passy, Upper Grand District School Board September 18, 2012 Tree Conservation Plan: Proposed Lee Street School, City of Guelph Please contact the undersigned with any questions or for additional information. Report Prepared By: Kevin Butt, B.Sc. (Env.), Eco. Rest. Cert., Terrestrial Ecologist ISA Certified Arborist No. ON-0861A PNWISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor No. 714 Butternut Health Assessor No. 062 S:\A+A Projects\2012\12-23A Cityview Drive TMP\Report\AA12-23A TCP doc 5

7 APPENDIX 1. TREE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY DBH (cm): Diameter at breast height, 1.4 m above ground, measured in centimeters. Two or more numbers denotes the DBH of each stem/trunk for trees with multiple stems/trunks. Height (metres): Height of tree from ground to top of crown. Height is estimated from visual ground observations. Crown Reserve (metres): Crown diameter (tree s canopy) measured at intervals of 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 15 meters. Biological Health: Related to presence and extent of disease/disease symptoms and the vigour of the tree. H (High) - No diseases/disease symptoms present, and moderate to high vigour. M (Moderate) - Presence of minor diseases/disease symptoms, and/or moderate vigour. L (Low) - Presence of major diseases/disease symptoms, (i.e., extensive crown dieback), and/or severely poor vigour. A further rating may be assigned of M(L) = Low side of Moderate, H(M) = Moderate side of High. Structural Condition: Related to defects in a tree s structure, (i.e., lean, codominant trunks). H (High) - No structural defects, well-developed crown. M (Moderate) - Presence of minor structural defects. L (Low) - Presence of major structural defects. A further rating may be assigned of M(L) = Low side of Moderate, H(M) = Moderate side of High. Position on Site: AP - above-ground planter; ED - Edge, e.g., forest, woodland; IN - Interior, e.g., forest, woodland; HR - hedgerow, row/linear group of trees; OG - open-grown; PI - planting island GP - group/cluster On-site Tree: Tree trunk located partially or completely on the property boundary of the subject property. Off-site Tree: Tree trunk located completely outside of the property boundary of the subject property. Municipal Tree: Tree is located on the property of the municipality/region, e.g., within Right-of-Way. Shared Tree: Tree shared between the subject property and adjacent private or public property. Documented as S in off-site tree or municipal tree data columns. Site Dev. Impact: Impact to tree is anticipated from proposed development (e.g., road, building) at or near the tree, and/or grade changes (cut/fill). Transplant Potential: A transplantation recommendation of Yes or No based on a tree s size, species, and condition, and site conditions (e.g. near adjacent trees/objects, on slopes, soil type). Recommended Action: A recommendation of the following three categories is assigned to preserve or remove a tree: i) The tree s current biological health and structural condition ii) The anticipated impacts from proposed development iii) The summary of the previous two categories. Note: Only trees having a recommendation of preserve for both health and structure, and impacts from the proposed development are assigned a final recommendation of preserve. P (Preserve) - Tree has a moderate to high biological health AND moderate to high structural condition, AND is likely to survive impact from the proposed development (if present). The tree is likely to survive for at least 3 to 5 years. R (Remove) - Tree has low biological health, AND/OR low structural condition, AND/OR will not survive the proposed development impacts (if present). The tree is not likely to survive more than 1-3 years. C (Conditional) - In some situations a tree s preservation or removal is related to potential relocation/modification of the limit of construction, and/or known arboricultural treatments that will likely improve the biological health and/or structural condition of the tree. This may include review of a tree s condition, e.g., roots, at time of construction/excavation. Hazard Potential (HP): A rating to express the potential of a tree to fail and cause damage and/or personal injury. The hazard potential rating considers three components: i) - A tree with the potential to fail (e.g., split trunk), ii) - the extent (size) of the defect, and iii) - presence of a target (e.g., person or object) that would be injured or damaged if the tree failed. Modified from: A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. 2nd Ed. 1994, I. S. A. H (High) - A major tree component, (i.e., branches or trunk >30cm diameter, is expected to fail at any time. M (Moderate) - A major tree component is expected to fail within 3 years, AND/OR a minor tree component (i.e. branches or trunk 10 to 30cm diameter) is expected to fail immediately. L (Low) - A minor tree component (i.e. branches or trunk 10 to 30cm diameter) is expected to fail within 3 years, and/or a small tree component (i.e. branches < 10cm diameter are expected to fail at any time. 0 (None) - No major or minor components of the tree are expected to fail for at least 3 years. Note: See Limitations of this Tree Assessment for explanation of what is implied by the hazard potential rating. 1

8 APPENDIX 1. TREE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY Codes of Damage Descriptions BA - branch attachment poor BB - burlap, basket, wire present on/in tree/root ball BC - bark crack BI - bark included BN - bark necrosis BS - basal trunk sprouts CB - crown broken CD - crown dieback CK - canker (abnormal growth from disease or damage) CL - crown live, CL20-20% live crown CS - crown sprouts CT - crown thin (having reduced foliage) CU - crown unbalanced CV - crown vines DW - deadwood FB - fungal bodies present LC - leaves chlorotic (yellow) LD - leaves defoliated LP - leader poor/problem MB - multi-branched node of limbs on stem ML - multiple leaders PH - planted high PL - planted low PP - past pruning problems RC - root crown damage/abnormality RE - roots exposed RG - roots girdling SC - stems co-dominant SG - stem girdled ST - soil on trunk TB - trunk bent TC - trunk cavity TK - trunk crooked TD - trunk decay TE - trunk base enlarged abnormally TF - trunk basal flair lacking / abnormal TG - trunk/stem girdling TL - trunk lean (L< 5 ), (M 5-20 ), (H>20 ) TM - trunks multiple from at or below ground level TS - trunk split TT - trunk twisted TW - trunk wound WW - wet wood Codes of Recommendations A - Add mulch B - Remove attachments (burlap, wire, stake, guard) C - Cable F - Fertilize L - lower soil level M - Monitor N - None Needed P - Prune R - Remove S - Soil bulk density (compaction) lower V - soil volume (increase) W - Water Life Expectancy 1 - Less than 5 years 2-5 to 10 years 3-11 to 20 years 4-21 to 50 years 5-51 to 100 years to 200 years Priority: An action priority schedule (i.e. general timing) to provide arboricultural treatment(s). E - Extremely Urgent (within a week) U - Urgent (within 3 months) H - High (within a year) M - Moderate (within 3 years) L - Low (little or no action required for at least 5 years) QUANTIFIED CONDITIONS (defects, diseases) L (low, minor), M (moderate), H (high, severe) E.G. CT(H) = severe crooked trunk TD(L) = minor trunk decay TF(H) = severely poor basal trunk flare CARDINAL COORDINATES (N, S, E, W) e.g., LN(L-S) = minor lean to the south 2

9 APPENDIX 1. TREE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY TREE QUALITY (TQ) Tree quality is a rating system of the relative importance of individual trees. It provides information about which trees have the highest quality and should be provided with the highest priority for preservation for existing or proposed land use (e.g., residential, open space). Tree quality is used to rate individual trees within a vegetation community and trees growing separately (e.g. streets, parks, rear yards) and not part of a larger vegetation community. Use of the tree quality rating system should be done by individuals with substantial knowledge about trees and the values that they provide (e.g. species morphology/ characteristics, cultural requirements, life expectancy,) within human settlement areas (e.g. cities). Criteria used to measure tree quality are species, maturity (based on trunk diameter), biological health, structural condition, and location on the site relative to existing features, e.g. roads, buildings and services. The rating of tree quality is also applied to vegetation communities as a rating of the quality of trees in general in the overall vegetation community e.g. hedgerow. Trees having a high tree quality rating may be part of a larger vegetation community (e.g., hedgerow) that may have a poor overall rating of biological health or structural condition. In other words, low quality vegetation communities may contain one or more moderate or high quality trees, which may warrant individual study and preservation. The following are criteria used in the rating of the quality of an individual tree. Species Quality: Generally preferred species are those that are long-lived (> 100 years under preferred / low stress growing conditions), provide preferred shading and screening benefits through natural development of crown and foliage, and typically develop few to no structural problems given modest management. Low Quality Tree Species: Manitoba maple, tree-ofheaven, white mulberry, Russian olive, poplars, willows. Moderate Quality Tree Species: white ash, silver maple, black walnut, Kentucky coffee-tree, honey locust, basswood, Katsura tree, catalpa, birches, Norway maple, ironwood, crab apple, Austrian pine, Scot s Pine, white cedar High Quality Tree Species: sugar maple, maidenhair tree, American beech, Colorado spruce, most hickories, white elm (DED resistant cultivars), hackberry, most oaks Maturity (Based on trunk size- DBH): immature (<15cm); moderately mature (15-30cm); mature (>30 cm). Biological Health: low, moderate or high. Structural Condition: low, moderate or high. Location: Tree location provides benefits (e.g. shading along street/boulevard, screening of rear yards, definition of space in parks). Tree location can be poor if it is/will interfere with existing structures and buildings, and services such as power lines. LOW TREE QUALITY: The quality of the tree is poor; having any two or more of the following criteria. low quality tree species (e.g., tree-of-heaven, Manitoba maple) low biological health low structural condition small, immature size of < 15cm DBH tree is over-mature for the species (e.g., old Lombardy poplar) tree is located so that it will damage existing structures or interfere with existing services within 5 years Improvement of the tree s quality is likely not possible. Preservation is not recommended. MODERATE TREE QUALITY: The quality of the tree is moderate or fair, having all of the following criteria. moderate to high quality tree species moderate biological health moderate structural condition moderate, immature (15 to 30cm DBH) to mature (> 30cm DBH) size tree is located so that it may damage existing structures or interfere with existing services within 5 to 10 years, OR not likely at all to interfere with existing structures or services Tree is likely to continue its moderate quality rating for at least 3 to 10 years under existing conditions. Minor treatments of tree s health/structure may be required. Preservation is recommended. HIGH TREE QUALITY: The quality of the tree is high or good having all/most of the following criteria. high quality tree species moderate to high biological health moderate to high structural condition mature size of > 30cm DBH tree is located so that it is not likely at all to interfere with existing structures or services Tree is likely to continue its high quality rating for at least 10 years under existing conditions. Minor to no tree care treatments are required. Preservation is recommended. A further breakdown of Tree Quality rating may be assigned: M(L) = a low, moderate rating (slightly poorer than moderate (M)L = a moderate, low rating (slightly better than low) QUANTITY OF QUALITY TREES The quantity of trees within a vegetation community (e.g., hedgerow) well suited as urban shade/screen trees (e.g., Moderate to High Tree Quality) under existing conditions, are listed. Tree Assessment Appendix docx 3

10 APPENDIX 3. TREE DATA: CITYVIEW SCHOOL SITE, CITYVIEW DRIVE & LEE STREET, GUELPH (Data recorded on March 16 & 19, 2012) Tree Unit No. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 Vegetation Community Type Tree Species (Common Name) Single Tree Picea abies Norway Spruce Single Tree Picea abies Norway Spruce Single Tree Picea abies Norway Spruce Single Tree Pinus sylvestris Scots Pine Single Tree Picea glauca White Spruce Single Tree Pinus sylvestris Scots Pine Single Tree Juglans regia ' Carpathian' Carpathian Walnut Single Tree Pinus sylvestris Scots Pine Single Tree Picea glauca White Spruce Single Tree Picea glauca White Spruce Single Tree Fraxinus americana White Ash Single Tree Malus domestica Apple DBH 10-30cm DBH >30 cm Single Tree Actual DBH R* - Removal of trees required for the reconstruction of Cityview Drive / Lee Street Intersection Height (m) Biological Health Crown Reserve (m) Structural Condition Tree Quality Health & Structure M(L) L L R R* R M(L) M(L) M P R* R H M(L) M P P P L M L R P R H H H P P P M H M P P P H H(M) M P P P M(L) M M P P P H M M P P P H M(L) M P P P H H H P P P H H H P P P M H M P R* R M(L) L L R R* R M(L) L L R R* R , H H(M) M P R* R Development Impacts Final Recommendation Observations / Comments CD(M), Broken branches (M), DW(H), TD(M), cavity on south side DW(H), main leaders dead at top Top broken off Dead TK(M), CL30% Extensive burrowing by animal through rootzone CT(H) DW(H), Basak trunk decay(l), TW(L) Extensive TK decay on north side of tree Extensive trunk decay S:\A+A Projects\2012\12-23A Cityview Drive TMP\Data\AA12-23A Tree Data xls 1

11 APPENDIX 3. TREE DATA: CITYVIEW SCHOOL SITE, CITYVIEW DRIVE & LEE STREET, GUELPH (Data recorded on March 16 & 19, 2012) Tree Unit No. T17 T18 T19 T20 T21 T22 T23 T24 T25 T26 T27 T28 T29 T30 T31 T32 T33 T34 T35 Vegetation Community Type Tree Species (Common Name) Single Tree Thuja occidentalis Single Tree Thuja occidentalis Single Tree Thuja occidentalis Single Tree Thuja occidentalis Single Tree Thuja occidentalis Single Tree Thuja occidentalis Single Tree Acer negundo Manitoba Maple Single Tree Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Single Tree Pinus sylvestris Scots Pine Single Tree Morus alba White Mulberry Single Tree Prunus serotina Black Cherry DBH 10-30cm DBH >30 cm Single Tree Actual DBH Height (m) Biological Health Crown Reserve (m) Structural Condition Tree Quality Health & Structure H(M) M M P P P H(M) M M P P P H H(M) H P P P H H H P P P M M(L) M P R R H M M P R R H L L R R R H M M P R R H H H P P P ,35, H M M P P P H M(L) M P P P H M M P P P H H(M) H P P P H(M) M M P P P ,40,15, 15, H M(L) L P R R H H M P R R H M L P R R M M M P R R H H M P R R Development Impacts Final Recommendation Observations / Comments Multiple stems fused from base to 1m, DW(L) DW(M) DW(L) DW(M), poorly structured node, 3 dead broken leaders, included bark (H) TW(L) TW(H) One sided growth to the south (M) One stem with extensive decay DW(L), broken branches (L) DW(L), broken branches (L), cavity in TK@4m and 6m Immediately inside property limit Immediately inside property limit Immediately inside property limit Immediately north of property limit S:\A+A Projects\2012\12-23A Cityview Drive TMP\Data\AA12-23A Tree Data xls 2

12 APPENDIX 3. TREE DATA: CITYVIEW SCHOOL SITE, CITYVIEW DRIVE & LEE STREET, GUELPH (Data recorded on March 16 & 19, 2012) Tree Unit No. T36 T37 T38 T39 T40 T41 T42 T43 T44 T45 T46 T47 T48 Vegetation Community Type Tree Species (Common Name) Single Tree Acer negundo Manitoba Maple Single Tree Salix sp. Willow sp. Single Tree Salix sp. Willow sp. Single Tree Salix sp. Willow sp. Single Tree Salix sp. Willow sp. Single Tree Acer platanoides Norway Maple Single Tree Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Single Tree Acer negundo Manitoba Maple Single Tree Acer negundo Manitoba Maple Single Tree Juglans nigra Black Walnut Single Tree Juglans nigra Black Walnut Single Tree Juglans nigra Black Walnut Single Tree Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash DBH 10-30cm DBH >30 cm Single Tree Actual DBH Height (m) Biological Health Crown Reserve (m) Structural Condition Tree Quality Health & Structure H M L P P P H H(M) L P R R H H L P R R H H L P R R H H L P R R H M(L) L P R R H H M P R R H M L P R R H H(M) L P R R , H M(L) M P R R H H H P P P H M M P R R H H M P R R Observations / Comments Crooked trunk (M) Development Impacts Final Recommendation LN(H) Vine covered (H) S:\A+A Projects\2012\12-23A Cityview Drive TMP\Data\AA12-23A Tree Data xls 3

13 APPENDIX 3. TREE DATA: CITYVIEW SCHOOL SITE, CITYVIEW DRIVE & LEE STREET, GUELPH (Data recorded on March 16 & 19, 2012) Tree Unit No. TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4 TG5 Vegetation Community Type Tree Group (Plantation) Tree Group (Immature Coniferous Woodland) Tree Group (Immature Coniferous Woodland) Tree Group (Hedgerow) Tree Group (Hedgerow) Tree Species (Common Name) Pinus sylvestris Scots Pine Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Thuja occidentalis Ulmus americana White Elm Juniperus virginiana Red Cedar Pinus sylvestris Scots Pine Thuja occidentalis Thuja occidentalis Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Pinus sylvestris Scots Pine Betula pendula European White Birch Malus domestica Apple Juniperus virginiana Red Cedar Thuja occidentalis Picea glauca White Spruce Acer negundo Manitoba Maple Picea abies Norway Spruce Acer negundo Manitoba Maple DBH 10-30cm DBH >30 cm Single Tree Actual DBH Height (m) Biological Health Crown Reserve (m) Structural Condition Tree Quality H H-M L P H H M P H H M P H H M P H H M P H H-M L P H H-M M P H H-M M P H H-M M P H H-M L P H M L P H M M P H H M P H H(M) M P H H H P H M(L) L P H H H P H M(L) L P Total Health & Structure P/R R R P P Development Impacts Final Recommendation P/R R R P P Offsite Offsite Observations / Comments Partial preservation, full extent of removals to be determined with detailed grading plan S:\A+A Projects\2012\12-23A Cityview Drive TMP\Data\AA12-23A Tree Data xls 4

14 APPENDIX 3. LIMITATIONS OF TREE ASSESSMENT It is the policy of Aboud & Associates Inc. to attach the following clause regarding limitations. We do this to ensure that developers, agencies, municipalities and owners are clearly aware of what is technically and professionally realistic in retaining trees. The assessment of the trees presented in this report has been made using accepted arboricultural techniques. These include a visual examination of the above-ground parts of each tree for structural defects, scars, external indications of decay such as fungal fruiting bodies, evidence of insect attack and crown dieback, discoloured foliage, the condition of any visible root structures, the degree and direction of lean (if any), the general condition of the tree(s) and the surrounding site, and the proximity of property and people. Except where specifically noted in the report, none of the trees examined were dissected, cored, probed, or climbed, and detailed root crown examinations involving excavation were not undertaken. Notwithstanding the recommendations and conclusions made in this report, it must be realized that trees are living organisms, and their health and vigour constantly change over time. They are not immune to changes in site conditions, or seasonal variations in the weather conditions, including severe storms with high-speed winds. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the trees recommended for retention are healthy no guarantees are offered, or implied, that these trees, or any parts of them, will remain standing. It is both professionally and practically impossible to predict with absolute certainty the behaviour of any single tree or group of trees or their component parts in all circumstances. Inevitably, a standing tree will always pose some risk. Most trees have the potential for failure in the event of adverse weather conditions, and this risk can only be eliminated if the tree is removed. Although every effort has been made to ensure that this assessment is reasonably accurate, the trees should be re-assessed periodically. The assessment presented in this report is valid at the time of the inspection. S:\Forms\Trees\Limitations of Tree Assessment\Tree Assessment Limitations Latest.doc 1

15 Urban Forestry Ecological Restoration Design Environmental Impact Studies Landscape Architecture Expert Opinion