Arbor Vitae Tree Consultants Tree Assessment Report

Similar documents
DUNSTER & ASSOCIATES Environmental Consultants Ltd.

Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan Report 1490 York Road St. Davids, ON

Arborist Report 1909 Lakeshore Rd, NOTL

CITY OF RAHWAY TREE POLICY

Arborist s Report on Trees of Concern

Table 1. Summary of tree conditions and recommendations. At a Minimum. DBH (in) Condition Target Risk. - Work Recommended Bigleaf

April 11, Background. property, Tree Risk. were. tree parts. The basic. premise of. educated. eliminate all trees. ASSESSMENT

Arborist Report/ Tree Inventory & Protection Plan

TREE SERVICE STANDARD OF CARE

TREE PRESERVATION SUMMARY

GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 4215 LA CRESTA AVENUE, OAKLAND, CA. Arborist Report

ISA Certified Arborist PN-6545A PO Box ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Lake Forest Park, WA WA. Business #

Hazard Tree Assessment - Why Is It Important?

TREE CONSERVATION REPORT

APPENDIX B. Arborist Report

December 10, Gino J. Aiello, Landscape Architect 50 Camelot Drive Ottawa, ON K2G 5X8 RE: TREE CONSERVATION REPORT LES TERRASSES FRANCESCA

404 Daly Avenue Tree Conservation Report

B. The purpose of the meeting shall be to establish the conditions of all existing trees upon receipt of the Project site by the Contractor. Failure t

DESIGNING FOR MANDATORY TREE PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUC TION

D13. Notable Trees Overlay

January 27, ADD: the same NAME OF VENDORR SIGNATORY DATE. V5Y 1V4 Canada. Vancouver, Page 1 of 1 City of Vancouver Chain Management

Arborist Report & Tree Preservation Plan. 231 Cobourg Street Ottawa, ON K1N 8J2

Tree Assessment Report Prepared for: Dr. Peter Giarrizzo 18 Franklin Place Pelham NY 10803

Curb and Gutter Replacement Project Phase I

TREE MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR DEVELOPMENT

Salem Street Trees: Sample Inventory

Standing Permit for Repair by Utility Providers

Old Milton and GA 400 Arborist Report Alpharetta

Diamond Head Consulting Ltd. Arborist Report

Re: Arborist Report for 200 Dundas St. East, Toronto (WARD 27)

Diamond Head Consulting Ltd. Arborist Report

TREE ASSESSMENT REPORT

Arboricultural Assessment Report

Richard Johnson & Associates, Vista Canyon Project Off Site Oak Tree Report, City of Santa Clarita (February 2010)

Oak Tree Permit Number PL Review 4895 Las Virgenes Road, Calabasas, California

The District of North Vancouver

PENNSYLVANIA STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT: APRIL 2007 CHAPTER 8: OTHER UTILITIES

Muhlenberg College Tree Plan

Rezoning Submission - Appendix G Children s and Women s Health Centre of British Columbia. app.g-1

E16. Trees in open space zones

City of New Bern. For Public Parks and Public Right-of-Ways

Form S1 Geotechnical Report

SCHEDULE 3 OF BYLAW 7900 CITY OF KELOWNA QUALITY CONTROL AND ASSURANCE

Rick Moe and Craig Rowell March 15th, 2010 PO Box 3710 Revised August 16th, 2010 Santa Cruz, Ca Reviewed January 27 th, 2016.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Contents of Engineering Specifications The Engineering Specifications contains the following sections:

APPENDIX D. Tree Inventory

Tree Risk Assessment: Executive Summary

Environmental Arborist Services TREE ASSESSMENT

Tree Protection Policy

ARTICLE II. TREE PRESERVATION. Sec Intent.

SouthShore Forest Consultants. Arborist Report. For

Tree Risk Assessment. Tree Risk Management includes. Tree Risk Mitigation. Pruning Supplemental Support Lightning Protection Removal

TITLE TEN - STREETS AND SIDEWALKS

TITLE 2 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, ETC. CHAPTER 1 TREE BOARD

APPENDIX IV.M. Tree Inventory and Assessment for Wilshire Grand Redevelopment Project Tract #71141 Prepared by Dudek, May 2010

ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ENV EIR FOR 6901 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD MIXED-USE PROJECT

UPDATED TREE REPORT 470 and 498 Corona Road Petaluma, CA

ARBORIST MEMO. July 23, Fauzia Suleman UBC PROPERTIES TRUST Suite Shrum Lane, Vancouver BC V6S 0C8

ADELAIDE APARTMENTS TOWER EXTENSION Tree Conservation Report

TREE AND LARGE SHRUB REPORT Golden Gate Park Soccer Fields

PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR MAJOR TREE REMOVAL

Project Information Manotick Station Road, Greely, ON K4P 1P6

Staff Review Date: August 9, 2017 HDC PID#

ARBORIST REPORT PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DWELLING FOR 1411 GLENWOOD DRIVE, MISSISSAUGA Prepared For: Mr. Steve Greer Harvis Barklay Investments Inc. 261 O

City of Reno Public Works 1 E. 1 st Street, 8 th Floor P.O. Box 1900 Reno, NV (775) (775) FAX


dpd 331B Seattle Permits Tip Hazard Trees STEPS FOR TREE ASSESSMENT Department of Planning and Development

APPENDIX H Tree Inventory and Assessment

ISA Certified Arborist Report Landscape and Tree Evaluation. Submitted To:

ISA Certified Arborist PN-6545A PO Box ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Lake Forest Park, WA WA. Business #

TREE PROTECTION (no.) CODE 990

Northumberland County Forest

City of Kingston Tree By-Law Guidelines

Tree Inventory and Assessment Report Laurelpark Subdivision Part Lot 19, Concession 6, Town of Caledon (Albion) Town of Caledon, Region of Peel

City of St. Augustine Tree Inventory and Risk Assessment Phase 3 Report July 25, 2016

May 18, Nick Pappani Raney Management 1501 Sports Drive Sacramento, CA 95834

BENTLETTS FARM SCRAPYARD, CLAYGATE ROAD, COLLIER STREET

Street Tree Replacement Specifications and Homeowner Initiated Replacement Process

Tree Policy For the Management of Trees on City Property

Land & Sculpture Design Partnership LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ARBORICULTURE SCULPTURE

Arboriat. eport. Severance of 6 Circie St, NOTL. Report prepared by Robyn Pollard, ISA ON 1352A 1ISA CTRA1587

Colorado Tree Consultants 1600 South Carr Street, Lakewood, Colorado January 21, 2015

Portland State University. Campus Tree Care Plan

The District of North Vancouver

Ayr, ON. 266 & 280 Northumberland Street. Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan Report

Instructions Arborist Verification of Hazardous or Conflicting Tree

FORESTRY AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS

DRAFT (July 2018) Butte County Oak Woodland Mitigation Ordinance

DRAFT Tree Assessment & Management Plan South Park

Appendix 3. POLICY & PROCEDURE No

May 18, Gino J. Aiello, Landscape Architect 50 Camelot Drive Ottawa, ON K2G 5X8 RE: TREE CONSERVATION REPORT 2887 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, OTTAWA

What is going on with Tree Risk Assessment? Likelihood of Tree Failure from Root and Sapwood

SAN MARINO PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Submittal Checklist for PRIVATE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST

Standard & Regulations

MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS REVISIONS PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 103D.341. Adopted April 24, 2014 Effective June 6, 2014

ANSI A 300 A300 Standard Practices

LANDSCAPING (TREE REMOVAL)

SIDEWALKS ASSESSMENT PROJECT TOWN OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, COLORADO

2018-TREE-0007 Crane Tree Report 46XX 178th St NE, Lake Forest Park, WA Site Plan Review, and Level 1 Limited Visual and Level 2 Basic Tree Assessment

City of Manteca Street Tree Plan. Implementation Plan of Manteca Municipal Code "Trees and Shrub"

Transcription:

Arbor Vitae Tree Consultants Tree Assessment Report Bob Ambardar Manager City of White Rock Engineering and Aelicia Otto Arborist/Horticulturalist City of White Rock 1-October-2014 Re: Review of sidewalk trees and tree sites Johnston Rd corridor. Summary Between the 10-12 of September 2014, 32 trees and planting sites along both sides of Johnston Rd between North Bluff and Thrift were visually inspected. The trees are a mix of 4 different genus: 19 Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 8 Japanese Flowering Cherrys Prunus serrulata 3 Red Maples Acer rubrum 1 English Oak Quercus rubra The objective was to: a. Provide a snapshot of the current condition of the trees b. Assess the level of damage to infrastructure adjacent to the tree planting sites c. Make preliminary recommendations concerning likelihood of successful retention. Based on preliminary findings it may be possible to successfully retain ~15 of the trees. 10-12 Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 2 Japanese Flowering Cherrys Prunus serrulata 1 Red Maples Acer rubrum 1 English Oak Quercus rubra Observations The majority of the trees appear to have been planted between 25-30 years ago, most installed in sidewalk sites. The method of planting and site preparation has contributed to trees with poor root structure, significant soil heaving with damage to infrastructure. In spite of this, the above ground portion of many trees is in fair to good condition. A snapshot of the current condition of the trees and sites reveals the following: 28 of 32 trees with root defects 27 of 32 tree well sites with a history of damage 21 of 32 trees with health and vigour rated fair or better 10 of 32 trees where retention is recommended and likelihood of success is good * 15 of 32 trees where retention is recommended and likelihood of success is fair * (* Recommendation for and success of retention are based on current site characteristics as well as overall tree condition.) Prepared by Arbor Vitae Tree Consultants P.O.Box 1185 Fort Langley BC V1M2S5 778-551-0130 email-arborvitaetree@gmail.com www.arborvitaeconsultants.com 1/5

Recommendations i. Create 4 working categories: 1. Trees to be removed (~17) 2. Number and location of replacements (0) 3. Trees that require further inspection and analysis (~12) 4. Trees to be retained and infrastructure repaired (3) Remember that trees will be removed from one category to another as more information becomes available i.e. as sections of sidewalk are removed to expose tree root structures, some that were considered for retention may be re-categorized into remove and replace. Tree @23. Soil/root heaving. ii. Trees considered for retention Prior to beginning any on-site work a thorough review of current literature and techniques for retaining existing large trees urban settings should be carried out. Have a well-documented plan prior to beginning (understanding that adjustments will be necessary as new information comes to light). Anytime material, whether soil, concrete or asphalt is being removed from the area inside the critical root zone (~5 X trunk diameter) there will be risks: o Possibility that the stability of the tree (i.e. the ability to stay vertical) may be o compromised. Change in soil environment that may result in disease pathogens being introduced into the root zone. Carefully remove the hard landscape (curb, gutter, sidewalk) from around the tree. It is typical that there will be root damage as a result. Try to minimize this. Using a hydro-vac truck or similar techniques excavate the sub-base soils from the trunk root flair and expose to minimum depth the root mass of the trees. Damage to the roots will occur and some roots will need to be cut in order to facilitate retention of the tree and re-building the site. Assess, make a final decision concerning retention. All work around the trees should be carried out under the supervision of the City Arborist or other qualified person and all work should be documented. Contract language is particularly important in projects that involve trying to assess and retain trees. Careful review and agreement by all departments involved is critical for success. iii. Planting replacement trees Planting techniques have improved tremendously over the last 2 decades. Almost all of the trees under discussion have been badly planted in poorly prepared sites. A review of the literature will provide a number of designs with recommendations concerning how to successfully plant trees in hard landscape settings. The City has engaged the services of a qualified Landscape Architect to review current best practices for design and construction of sidewalk planting sites. Adequate root room is the most important thing for the establishment and long-term survival of trees while minimizing potential for damage to sidewalks and curbs. Lack of water is the single most limiting factor in successful establishment of new trees. Where space is adequate choose tree species that establish quickly, grow to a reasonable size over 10 years, and have a proven track record. It may be that positions for replacement trees have to be adjusted from the original planting locations. Remember that underground services, adequate space above and below ground, Prepared by Arbor Vitae Tree Consultants P.O.Box 1185 Fort Langley BC V1M2S5 778-551-0130 email-arborvitaetree@gmail.com www.arborvitaeconsultants.com 2/5

street use as well as a cohesive street presence all need to be considered when deciding where trees will go. Discussion Questions that should be answered prior to moving forward: What is the structure and condition of the below ground portion of the trees? What impact of proposed redesign for the street have on successful retention of the trees and if necessary can construction details be adjusted? How best to design for a cohesive overall streetscape? What are reasonable expectations for the retained trees? What is the long-term strategy for vegetation on Johnston corridor? My experience as the Arborist for New Westminster included 2 projects very similar to this. In the end a nuanced approach worked best. To reiterate, key points include: Investigation and analysis based on what is revealed when material from around the tree is removed. Often what is uncovered will quickly point in the best choice, be it retention or removal and replacement. A workable plan to repair the damage and to control as much as possible future damage should be drafted and any change to the layout of the hard landscape can be implemented. In other words you investigate as thoroughly as you possibly can and if you do not find a good reason to not proceed with retention then you go ahead. Suitability for retention will depend on a number of factors and ultimately will be made on a tree-by-tree basis. It is impossible to know the full long term impact that renovation and retention will have on a particular trees. All that can be assured is that the work is undertaken using the best industry agreed upon principles of mature tree management in sidewalk sites. This situation is common throughout the industrialized world. Many designers, engineers and arborists have undertaken projects like this. Have a long range plan that includes retention of some of the best trees, how new plantings will fill in spaces on the street, and how re-development and associated off site works can be incorporated into the overall vegetation plan for the street. Try to maintain the ambiance on the street. Repairs can usually be made to infrastructure that will manage tripping hazards, at least in the short term (5-7 years) Create a sidewalk tree planting design that provide the largest volume of soil possible and where feasible irrigation. There are a number of good designs that other municipalities have created. Each tree that is being considered for retention has grown and evolved in a unique situation. Any disruption to this environment will have risks. Exposing the below ground portion of any tree and judiciously cutting roots to accommodate sidewalk repair/re-design has risks. Limitations Recommendations for retention and the likelihood of success as outlined in this report are based on the tree and site as they were observed on the day of assessment. It is impossible to predict the full effect on tree health and stability that root disruption may have. It is also impossible to predict the long-term impact on tree health that reconstructing the infrastructure (sidewalks, curbs etc) adjacent to retained trees may have. ~ Prepared by Arbor Vitae Tree Consultants P.O.Box 1185 Fort Langley BC V1M2S5 778-551-0130 email-arborvitaetree@gmail.com www.arborvitaeconsultants.com 3/5

Limitations of this Assessment It is Arbor Vitae Tree Consultants policy to attach the following clause regarding limitations. We do this to ensure that developers or owners are clearly aware of what is technically and professionally realistic in retaining trees. The assessment of the tree(s) 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, discolored 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. 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 behavior 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 inspection. Notwithstanding the recommendation made in this report W.J. Wilde /Arbor Vitae Tree Consultants accept no responsibility for the implementation of all or any part of this plan, unless we have specifically been requested to examine said implementation activities. Approval and implementation of this plan in no way implies any inspection or supervisory role on the part of W.J. Wilde/Arbor Vitae Tree Consultants. In the event that inspection or supervision of all or part of the implementation of the plan is requested, said request shall be in written and the details agreed to in writing by both parties. Any on site inspection or supervisory work undertaken by W.J. Wilde/Arbor Vitae Tree Consultants shall be recorded in written form and submitted to the client as a matter of record. The report shall be considered a whole, no sections are severable, and the report shall be considered incomplete if any pages are missing. This report is the sole property of W.J. Wilde/Arbor Vitae Tree Consultants and the client(s) for whom it was prepared. It is not intended for public review without the written authorization of both parties. On behalf of Arbor Vitae Tree Consultants, Prepared by Arbor Vitae Tree Consultants P.O.Box 1185 Fort Langley BC V1M2S5 778-551-0130 email-arborvitaetree@gmail.com www.arborvitaeconsultants.com 4/5

(1-October-2014) William Wilde, ISA Certified Arborist #0295/ TRAQ Certified Prepared by Arbor Vitae Tree Consultants P.O.Box 1185 Fort Langley BC V1M2S5 778-551-0130 email-arborvitaetree@gmail.com www.arborvitaeconsultants.com 5/5