TREE ASSESSMENT REPORT

Transcription

1 TREE ASSESSMENT REPORT 2096 WONDERLAND ROAD NORTH, LONDON ONTARIO Prepared NOVEMBER 2018 Prepared by MICHELLE PEETERS ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST ON-2129A 368 OXFORD STREET EAST, LONDON, ONTARIO, CANADA N6A 1V7 T: F: E: W: RKLA.CA

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 2 Subject Site... 2 Scope of Service... 2 Methodology & Health Assessment Criteria... 2 Inventory Data and Preservation/Removal Recommendations... 3 Tree Preservation/Removal Analysis... 6 Mitigation Recommendations... 6 Executive Summary... 8 Disclaimer... 9 Appendix A Tree Protection Zone Fence Details Appendix B Tree Preservation Drawing P a g e 1

3 INTRODUCTION Ron Koudys Landscape Architects (RKLA) was retained to conduct a tree inventory and assessment in conjunction with site plan development of the proposed development at 2096 Wonderland Road North in London, Ontario. SUBJECT SITE The subject site is 2096 Wonderland Road North. It is on the east side of Wonderland Road just south of Sunningdale Road. The site is currently occupied by a single dwelling, surrounded on the north and east by a condominium development and single family residential lots to the south. The property is characterized by its use as a single family home with maintained turf grass and young to mature trees scattered throughout the property. There are no significant boundary trees or hedges. There is a coniferous hedge outside the property to the east and assorted coniferous and deciduous trees outside the property to the south, none of whose foliage or canopies extend past the property line. The site is not within the City of London tree protection area. SUBJECT SITE Figure 1: Subject site and inventory scope from City of London website NTS SCOPE OF SERVICE Our firm was instructed to undertake an assessment of the existing trees located within the subject site and within 3m beyond the subject site to determine a preservation strategy and removals plan for the existing trees. An RKLA Inc certified arborist undertook an assessment of the existing trees within the specified scope with respect to tree health and preservation. Assessment of all existing trees with a DBH >10cm was undertaken with consideration for the proposed development and associated site work. METHODOLOGY & HEALTH ASSESSMENT CRITERIA Methodology Field work was completed by RKLA on October 30, The preliminary topographic survey prepared by Callon Dietz Inc Ontario Land Surveyors was used as the base for the field work. P a g e 2

4 A comprehensive inventory following ISA standard practices of all trees >10cm DBH (diameter at breast height) within the scope specified above was completed. Significant hedges were also identified. Trees were not tagged in the field. The following information was recorded for each tree: Identification number Species Diameter at breast height (DBH) (centimeters) Crown radius (meters) Crown Condition (overall general vigour of crown) Structural Condition (good, fair, poor) General Comments Location based on survey The tree data collected was analyzed in conjunction with the proposed site plan and grading plan. This analysis informed our recommendations on which trees to, which trees to and recommendations for pre, during, and post strategies for minimizing damage for trees to be d. Health Assessment Criteria Crown Condition Classification 5 Healthy: less than 10% crown decline 4 Slight decline: 11% - 30% crown decline 3 Moderate decline: 31% - 60% crown decline 2 Severe decline: 61% - 90% crown decline 1 Dead Structural Condition Classification Good: Defects if present are minor (e.g. twig dieback, small wounds); defective tree part is small (e.g. 5-8 cm diameter limb) providing little if any risk. Fair: Defects are numerous or significant (e.g. dead scaffold limbs); defective parts are moderate in size (e.g. limb greater than 5-8 cm in diameter). Poor: Defects are severe (trunk cavity in excess of 50%); defective parts are large (e.g. majority of crown). Dead: Tree exhibits no signs of life. INVENTORY DATA AND PRESERVATION/REMOVAL RECOMMENDATIONS The following data was collected on October 30, Recommendations are based on a combination of tree data and requirements of the site plan. P a g e 3

5 GENERAL INFORMATION SIZE HEALTH RECOMMENDATION ID # BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME DBH (cm) CANOPY RADIUS (m) CROWN CONDITION 1 - DEAD 5 - HEALTHY STRUCTURAL CONDITION COMMENTS 1 Pyrus spp Pear Tree fair No root flare Epicormic growth Low hanging branches Grapevine through 50% of canopy 2 Salix spp Willow fair Immediately beside ex. Dwelling Bulbous base Extensive epicormic growth 3 Picea abies Norway good Limbed up 6m from grade Buckthorn understory 4 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple good Exposed roots Weak unions 5 Acer rubrum Red Maple good Within City ROW City unique tree id no Aesculus hippocastanum Horse Chestnut poor Major vertical wound on SW (street) side Basal damage Peeling bark Supressed Within City ROW City unique tree id no Cratageus spp Hawthorn 10, 9, 9, good Multistem 4 Branches are thorn dense Within future City ROW 8 Picea abies Norway good Limbed up 6m from grade Pineapple gall Slight lean SE Within future City ROW PROPOSED ACTION RATIONALE 9 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple good Supressed 10 Acer Silver Maple good Tight unions saccharinum Epicormic growth from base 11 Picea abies Norway good Limbed up 6m from grade 12 Picea abies Norway good Limbed up 5m from grade 13 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple good Cavity in secondary limb Trees 13/14/15 share root volume 14 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple fair Rubbing branches with tree 15 Trees 13/14/15 share root volume 15 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple poor Major cavity at 2m from grade in trunk Rubbing branches causing damage Trees 13/14/15 share root volume 16 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple fair Major cavity in large scaffold branch Supressed Slight lean E, canopy heavy to SE Elevated roots 17 Acer saccharinum Silver Maple good Tight unions 18 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple good Earlier leaf drop than neighbouring Sugar Maples 19 Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis Honeylocust good Low primary union with included bark Within City ROW City unique tree id no beyond P a g e 4

6 20 Juglans nigra Black Walnut good Uneven grade at base Supressed Within future City ROW of new sidewalk 21 Pinus nigra Austrian Pine good No root flarelow branched 22 Pinus sylvestris Scotch Pine good Buckthorn understory 23 Colorado good Supressed 24 Aesculus Horse Chestnut poor Significant dead wood and snags hippocastanum Codominant leaders Uneven crown Epicormic growth Very poor structure 25 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple poor POTENTIAL HAZARD Major cavity/rot on SE side from base to 1.5m from grade with frass Mature epicormic shoots 26 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple poor POTENTIAL HAZARD Significant cavity near base Appears as though previously existing main trunk failed and has left a large tear on the remaining main trunk - wound extends from 2m from grade to approx. 10m Dead branches Significant included bark 27 Malus spp Apple Tree good Epicormic growth - typical 28 Malus spp Apple Tree good Epicormic growth - typical Codominant leaders Low canopy 29 Prunus spp Cherry Tree fair Low primary union with wound 2 main trunks are nearly horizontal with epicormic growth sprouting vertically Low branched 30 Magnolia spp Magnolia 12, 12, 9, good Multistem 4 Low branched Unbalanced crown trees on private property Pyrus calleryana Quercus robur 'Fastigiata' Ornamental Pear Tree Colorado Green Colorado Green Pyramidal English Oak ~ good ~ good ~ good ~ good ~ good ~ good ~ good ~8 1 5 good ~8 1 5 good ~8 1 5 good P a g e 5

7 Thuja occidentalis (hedge) ~8 1 5 good ~8 1 5 good ~8 1 5 good Black Cedar Hedge avg ~ good ~5 1 5 good TREE PRESERVATION/REMOVAL ANALYSIS The proposed building and required site work may impact existing trees to be d with respect to root and canopy zones. Tree Preservation measures will be implemented to mitigate these effects. No, stockpiling, or heavy equipment will be permitted beyond the limit (see Tree Preservation Barrier locations on the attached drawings). Potential impacts on trees to be d may include: 1. Physical damage to branches, trunks, and roots of trees to be retained. 2. Local moisture loss which may result from a decline in the water table during and after. 3. Contamination of the soil from chemicals. 4. Increased sun/wind exposure which could result in scald or windthrow. 5. Placement of fill material on root zones resulting in stress and damage to the root structure. The successful survival of the trees to be d is largely dependent on adhering to the recommendations that follow. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations are designed to enhance the survival of trees to be d. While it is always desirable to retain as many trees as possible on a site, some trees, because they are in poor condition or are undesirable species, cannot be saved for safety, aesthetic, or sylvicultural reasons. There is no guarantee, however, that the trees to be d will not be impacted by the process. The following recommendations are supplied to ensure minimal impact on and to enhance the survival potential of the trees to be d: A) PRE-CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Prior to tree removal operations, the limit of the removals will be clearly marked (i.e. all trees designated for removal are to be marked with spray paint). 2. All removals must take place between September 1st and April 1 st to avoid disturbing nesting migratory birds. Trees may be d outside this window (between April P a g e 6

8 1 st and August 31 st ) only if a qualified bird specialist/ecologist has determined there are no nesting birds in the trees. All cutting will be done by chain saw. These trees to be identified by the project landscape architect working in conjunction with a qualified arborist and ecologist. This requirement is in accordance with the Migratory Birds Convention Act, Trees on site to be d for sylvicultural, safety, or aesthetic reasons should be marked for removal (e.g. spray paint). All cutting will be done by chainsaw. These trees to be identified by the project Landscape Architect working in conjunction with a qualified arborist. 4. Undertake a tree education program for all contractors and put in place enforceable penalties for any damage resulting from neglect. 5. Care should be taken during the felling operation to avoid damaging the branches, stems, trunks, and roots of the trees to be d. Where possible, all trees are to be felled towards the zone to minimize impacts on adjacent vegetation. 6. Stem damage to trees from skidding operations during the removal process should be avoided. Trunks of trees to be d near the zone should be wrapped with three layers of snow fencing to provide protection. 7. Heavy equipment should not be allowed under the drip line (limit of branches) of the trees to be d. 8. Broken branches on trees to be d should be cleanly cut by a qualified arborist/horticulturalist as soon as possible after the damage has occurred. Do not apply wound dressings to the cut areas. 9. Final site grading should ensure that surface water is discharged from the site and that the existing soil moisture conditions are maintained. 10. Some trees may be candidates for pre- root pruning to help reduce stress and prepare the tree for nearby activity. These trees to be identified on tree preservation plan by landscape architect. 11. It is recommended that the existing ground-layer vegetation remain intact so as not to disturb the soil around the base of the existing trees. B) RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS 1. Heavy duty protection fencing (see appendix A) is to be maintained until all heavy work is complete. No movement of equipment or dumping of solvents, gasoline, etc. is permitted beyond this fence line. 2. Where high-quality specimens exist adjacent to areas subject to intensive activity, wooden cribbing (e.g. planks, plywood s) should be erected to protect their trunks from damage. 3. During the excavation process, roots that are severed and exposed should be hand pruned to leave a clean-cut surface. This will reduce the opportunity for pests or disease to enter through the wounds. Wound dressing may be used in this process. 4. If grade changes are required in areas adjacent to trees to be d, work should be done to minimize the impact on the trees. Tree wells, retaining walls, or other site features should be used. 5. Form concrete sidewalk, if proposed, with fibre expansion material in place of wood forms where roots conflict with existing concrete sidewalks. P a g e 7

9 6. Avoid running above-ground wires and underground services near trees to be d. Avoid open trenching within the tree root zone. Utilize horizontal boring techniques to install utilities below root areas. 7. Regular monitoring of the site by the Landscape Architect will help to ensure proper procedures are followed and protection barriers are maintained. C) POST-CONSTRUCTION REOMMENDATIONS 1. Avoid discharging rain water leaders adjacent to retained trees. This may result in an overly moist environment which will cause the tree roots to rot. 2. After all work is completed, snow fences and other barriers should be d. 3. A final review must be undertaken by the Landscape Architect to ensure that all mitigation measures as described above have been met. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY General Summary A Total of 45 trees were included in this inventory. No rare, endangered, or unusual species were observed on site. No specimen trees in terms of species or quality were observed on site. All trees included in inventory are common to the geographic area and are typical of the current land use. Some Sugar Maples of notable size were observed but have significant structural defects. Species Breakdown Trees within subject site Trees on private property Species Qty Species Qty Sugar Maple 9 10 Norway 4 Colorado Green 2 Silver Maple 3 Black Cedar Hedge 1 Apple Tree 2 Ornamental Pear Tree 1 Horse Chestnut 2 Pyramidal English Oak 1 Cherry Tree 1 Pear Tree 1 Willow 1 Honeylocust 1 Scotch Pine 1 Austrian Pine 1 Colorado 1 Magnolia 1 Hawthorn 1 Black Walnut 1 Grand Total 30 Grand Total 15 P a g e 8

10 Summary of findings Number of trees included in inventory 45 Number of trees to be d within subject site 0 Number of trees to be d 16 Number of trees to be d from subject site for 24 Number of trees to be d from City ROW (or future City ROW) 5 for RKLA recommends the following: 1. Removal of all interior trees. 2. Preservation of all trees on private property beyond the subject site. 3. Removal of 5 trees within the City ROW / future City ROW. 4. Installation and maintenance of tree preservation fencing as per the details and specifications on the tree preservation drawing for tree # 19. DISCLAIMER The assessment of the trees presented within 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, evidence of insect presence, discoloured foliage, the general condition of the trees and the surrounding site, as well as the proximity of property and people. 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 is constantly changing. They are not immune to changes in site conditions or seasonal variations in the weather. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the trees recommended for retention are healthy, no guarantees are offered or implied, that these trees or any part of them will remain standing. P a g e 9

11 APPENDIX A TREE PROTECTION ZONE FENCE DETAILS P a g e 10

12 APPENDIX B TREE PRESERVATION DRAWING P a g e 11

13 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN N68 14' 45"E EXISTING CONDO UNIT 6 EXISTING CONDO UNIT 4 EXISTING CONDO UNIT 2 EX. DWY EX. DWY EX. DWY EXISTING CONDO UNIT 10 EX. DWY EX. DWY EXISTING CONDO UNIT 9 GUEST PARKING N21 45' 15"W DWELLING STOREY EX. CONDO EX. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION UNIT 7 N68 14' 45"E EX. 2 BRICK EX. PRIVATE CONDO ROAD EX WALLINGFORD AVE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT NOTES: LEGEND KEY MAP DRAFT