Tree Inventory Plan and Appendices

Transcription

1 Tree Inventory Plan and Appendices Appendix F

2 Niska Road Municipal Class EA Tree Inventory Plan City of Guelph R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited 292 Speedvale Avenue West Unit 20 Guelph ON N1H 1C4 CANADA September

3 City of Guelph i Niska Road Municipal Class EA Tree Inventory Plan September 2015 Distribution List No. of Hard Copies PDF Organization Name Record of Revisions Revision Date Description 0 September 21, Initial Submission to City of Guelph 2015 R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Report Prepared By: Kevin Butt, B.Sc. (Env). Eco. Rest. Cert. Certified Arborist & Terrestrial Ecologist KB:sd Report Reviewed By: Philip Rowe, C.E.T. Vice President, Environmental Planning and Assessment PR:sd R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Niska Road Tree Inventory Plan.docx

4 City of Guelph ii Niska Road Municipal Class EA Tree Inventory Plan September 2015 Table of Contents 2.0 Methodology Findings Bridge Reconstruction Road Corridor Niska Road Downey Road Intersection Construction s Bridge Road Corridor Urban Cross-section ( 1) Urban Cross-section ( 2) Urban Cross-section ( 3) Rural Cross-section ( 4) Niska Road Downey Road Intersection Signalized Intersection ( 1) Roundabout ( 2) Roundabout ( 3) Recommendations Conclusion... 7 Appendices Figures Appendix A Tree Studies: Methodology Appendix B Tree Assessment Data Appendix C Tree Studies: Limitations R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Niska Road Tree Inventory Plan.docx

5 City of Guelph iii Niska Road Municipal Class EA Tree Inventory Plan September 2015 Disclaimer Other than by the addressee, copying or distribution of this document, in whole or in part, is not permitted without the express written consent of R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Niska Road Tree Inventory Plan.docx

6 City of Guelph 1 Niska Road Municipal Class EA Tree Inventory Plan September Introduction R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited (Burnside) was retained by the City of Guelph to complete a Municipal Class Schedule C Environmental Assessment (EA) for road improvements to Niska Road from Ptarmigan Drive to approximately 115 m west of Speed River (western City limit) and investigate options for the existing bridge. Improvements to the intersection of Niska Road and Downey Road are also being included in the EA. The EA suggests that the road through the study corridor is at the end of its useful life, and the bridge is in very poor condition. Safety and poor traffic flow are concerns associated with the existing conditions at the Niska Road Downey Road intersection. The EA offers an analysis of the existing condition of the road, bridge and intersection and provides an investigation of options for redesign of these elements while considering social, economic, aquatic, natural environment, archaeological, cultural heritage, safety and traffic impacts of the proposed options. The intersection redesign options at Downey Road are intended to improve safety and traffic flow. This tree inventory plan is an investigation of trees within the study area that may be impacted by the proposed road cross-sections options as well as the intersection redesign. Preservation of trees within the study area is a significant consideration of the design. The methodology used to assess the trees, and a summary of findings are provided. The components listed below comprise this study: Appendix A: Tree Studies: Methodology Appendix B: Tree Assessment Data Appendix C: Tree Studies: Limitations Figure T1: Impacts to Trees Rural Profile Figure T2: Impacts to Trees Urban Profile A preferred option and rationale for the preference of the road cross-section, bridge and intersection are provided in the Environmental Study Report (ESR) component of the EA. 2.0 Methodology All tree assessment was completed by Kevin Butt, ISA Certified Arborist. The section of Niska Road from Ptarmigan Drive to west of Speed River (i.e. the Road Corridor) was completed on December 9, 2014 and January 2, On June 2, 2015 trees adjacent R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Niska Road Tree Inventory Plan.docx

7 City of Guelph 2 Niska Road Municipal Class EA Tree Inventory Plan September 2015 to the Niska Road Downey Road intersection were reviewed and a leaf-on review of the trees originally investigated in the previous winter was carried out. Trees subject to the assessment are: Trees 10 cm and greater Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) within the public road right-of-way (ROW); and Trees 10 cm and greater DBH on adjacent lands immediately adjacent to the ROW. The base plan provided by Burnside surveyors was used for locating the trees. Locations of trees not included in the survey were estimated during the field assessment. Data collected for each tree is included: Species (Botanical & common names) Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) (cm) Crown Reserve (metres) Condition (Good, Fair, Poor, Dead) Additional Notes: comments to assist with the qualification of the condition, collected for some of the assessed trees In locations where trees of the same species are located close together and have similar characteristics, they have been compiled into groups under a single number. Appendix A provides a description of the methodology used to assess trees. Tree assessment data is provided in Appendix B of this report. Recommendations of preservation and removal are based on conceptual rural and urban cross-sections. The urban cross-section is not based on the City s Standard Urban Cross-section. Instead, the cross-section used in the tree preservation plan is a typical road design most frequently used for green field subdivision design in order to minimize overall impacts. This data is illustrated on Figures T1 and T2 of this report. Appendix C. Tree Studies provides an explanation of constraints that the arborist works within and factors (e.g., seasonal) that limit a data collection in a tree investigation. 3.0 Findings 3.1 Bridge Reconstruction The bridge that crosses the Speed River is a single lane Bailey Bridge with no pedestrian walkway or bicycle lane. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Niska Road Tree Inventory Plan.docx

8 City of Guelph 3 Niska Road Municipal Class EA Tree Inventory Plan September Road Corridor Niska Road currently has a rural cross-section with a lane for each direction (eastbound and westbound), gravel shoulders and ditches. Natural heritage features (forests and wetlands) comprise the west portion the lands adjacent to the road corridor. Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) dominated hedgerows line both sides of the corridor at the east limit of the study area of the road corridor. Agricultural lands are found beyond the hedgerows in the eastern portion. A total of 199 trees and tree groups were included in the inventory within this section of the project. 3.3 Niska Road Downey Road Intersection The intersection at Niska Road and Downey Road is an un-signalized T-intersection with a stop sign controlling traffic from Niska Road. Adjacent lands are comprised of singlefamily residential properties, Hanlon Creek and its associated floodplain, and a stormwater management pond. A total of 11 trees were reviewed on lands adjacent to the intersection improvements. 4.0 Construction s 4.1 Bridge Three scenarios for bridge reconstruction were considered in the EA. These options are: Covered Steel Through Truss Bridge, Concrete Slab on Steel Girder Bridge and Pony Truss Bridge. It is believed that tree preservation does not differ between the 3 designs due to the footprints of the bridges being similar. Potentially 2 to 3 trees will require removal to accommodate the new bridge; however, impacts during construction of the bridges vary. It is believed that 2 temporary crane pads will require installation within the floodplain to install the 2 Truss Bridge options, resulting in additional tree removal and mitigation requirements. The Steel Girder option allows for placement of the crane on the existing road, eliminating the requirement for crane pads. The extent of impacts during construction resulting from installation of the new abutments, construction access and the associated grading will be determined at the detailed design stage. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Niska Road Tree Inventory Plan.docx

9 City of Guelph 4 Niska Road Municipal Class EA Tree Inventory Plan September Road Corridor The road design has been evaluated using a two stage approach. Urban, rural and semi-urban cross-sections were compared and evaluated considering both the City Standard cross-section and Modified cross-section. Figures T1 and T2 illustrate tree removals required for the urban and rural options. The Urban cross-section will result in an estimated 34 of the 199 trees and tree groups requiring removal to accommodate construction. The Rural option will result in an estimated 124 of the 199 trees and tree groups requiring removal. Following evaluation of urban, rural and semi-urban cross-sections, variations of the best cross-section type with the least overall impact were evaluated. In this case, the urban cross-section had the least overall impact. Generally, the greatest impacts to trees occur with grading that approaches the limit of the ROW Urban Cross-section ( 1) This scenario is comprised of an 8.0 m wide asphalt road (shared vehicle/bike lane), curb and gutter, 3.0 m wide boulevard on the south side and boulevard and sidewalk on the north side. All lands beyond the 3.0 m section would be subject to minimal impacts to match proposed grades with the adjacent natural contours Urban Cross-section ( 2) This scenario is comprised of a 7.5 m wide asphalt road (shared vehicle/bike lane), curb and gutter, reduced 1.0 m wide boulevard on the south side and sidewalk and reduced boulevard (1.0 m) on the north side. All lands beyond the 3.0 m section would be subject to minimal impacts to match proposed grades with the adjacent natural contours Urban Cross-section ( 3) This scenario is comprised of a 7.0 m wide asphalt road (shared vehicle with no bike lane), curb and gutter, 1.0 m wide boulevard on the south side and sidewalk and reduced boulevard (1.0 m) on the north side. All lands beyond the 3.0 m section would be subject to minimal impacts to match proposed grades with the adjacent natural contours. This option has the least impacts on the trees on the ROW and adjacent lands due to the cross-section having smallest footprint Rural Cross-section ( 4) Although the current road is a rural cross-section, it does not meet the City standard due to undersized asphalt and shoulders. A standard rural cross-section is a scenario that requires the relocation of the ditches toward the ROW limit to accommodate the wider R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Niska Road Tree Inventory Plan.docx

10 City of Guelph 5 Niska Road Municipal Class EA Tree Inventory Plan September 2015 road and shoulder. Trees adjacent to the relocated ditches will experience significant impacts due to root severances and compaction. The cross-section is comprised of a 7.0 m wide asphalt road (shared vehicle with no bike lane), 2 metre wide shoulder (both sides), and a 2.5 m wide ditch (both sides). This option has the greatest impacts on the trees on the ROW and adjacent lands. 4.3 Niska Road Downey Road Intersection No impacts to the 11 trees included in the study will result from any of the 3 options Signalized Intersection ( 1) This option requires the expansion of Niska Road at the intersection to accommodate a left and right turn lane approaching Downey Road and an island that separates the these 2 lanes from the traffic turning onto Niska Road from Downey Road. A sidewalk and boulevard are also proposed along the north side of Niska Road. Encroachment into the treed area north of the intersection would be required to accommodate the sidewalk and grading. This option has the greatest impacts on the trees on the ROW and adjacent lands if the sidewalk is extended along the north side. Impacts to these trees are anticipated to be significantly reduced if the sidewalk is constructed against the back of the curb, with no boulevard (subject to confirmation through analysis of the detailed grading) Roundabout ( 2) This is a standard turning circle (see section for the custom roundabout). This option is anticipated to have little to no impacts on existing trees due to the setback of proposed features and the routing of the sidewalk across Niska Road to avoid the wooded area Roundabout ( 3) This option is comprised of a reduced radii traffic circle with a designated right turn lane. This configuration will result in minimal impacts to the treed area but the new road will move closer to the wetland. 4.4 Recommendations The following list of recommendations is provided to reduce impacts to trees during the detailed design and construction processes. 1. A detailed tree protection plan should be prepared in conjunction with the final grading plan to determine impacts to trees and measures for their protection. Details on the location of tree protection fencing, and special considerations for certain R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Niska Road Tree Inventory Plan.docx

11 City of Guelph 6 Niska Road Municipal Class EA Tree Inventory Plan September 2015 retained trees (e.g., hand excavation in sensitive areas) will be provided. Additional characterization of trees and assessment may be required if grading or sidewalks require encroachment, particularly on the wooded area on the north side of Niska Road, immediately north of the Niska Road - Downey Road intersection. 2. Fell all trees required to accommodate the proposed works outside of the core breeding window, typically between April 26 and July 31. If this is not possible, a pre-construction nesting survey should be completed by a qualified ecologist/biologist immediately prior to tree removal activities. 3. All tree removals must be carried out by a qualified tree service under the direction of a certified arborist. 4. All trees adjacent to proposed sidewalks and road elements where people could be injured or damage to property could occur as a result of tree or branch failure should be inspected by a certified arborist prior to allowing full public access to the area. Removals or pruning must be carried out by a qualified tree service under the direction of a certified arborist. 5. All tree protection measures must be monitored by qualified personnel in conjunction with other protective measures such as erosion and sediment control fencing. These measures must remain in good repair for the duration of the site work. All deficiencies must be documented and fixed immediately. 6. No grading, vehicular access or stockpile can occur within areas delineated with tree protection fence. 7. Tree protection signage should be affixed to the tree protection fence at regular intervals (e.g., 100 m on centre) and contact details for the construction manager should be posted. 8. Contractors should be made aware of importance of tree protection fence, especially machine operators working adjacent to protected areas. 9. Tree planting as well as other measures to reduce impacts to the adjacent natural heritage features identified in the Natural Environment Report will be detailed in the landscape plans. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Niska Road Tree Inventory Plan.docx

12 City of Guelph 7 Niska Road Municipal Class EA Tree Inventory Plan September Conclusion Tree preservation is one of the considerations of the EA process for the review of reconstruction of road elements. Selection of the options of the road corridor, bridge and intersection with the least grading within the ROW will maximize tree preservation. Coordination of tree protection information with the grading design and implementation and maintenance of tree protection measures during the development period will encourage the retained trees to thrive. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Niska Road Tree Inventory Plan.docx

13 Figures Figures

14

15

16 Appendix A Tree Studies: Methodology Appendix A

17 Tree Studies: Methodology The list provided below represents all data that may be collected in the analysis of trees. Methodology descriptions should be reviewed with the column headings provided in the data. The columns represent the scope and extent of the tree assessment carried out. Tree #: This number may be assigned by the tree assessor or predetermined by the surveyor or client. In some situations, a tree number may be assigned to a group of the same species of trees growing close together, with similar characteristics. Species Name: Botanical name of the species. Common Name: Commonly used English name. DBH (cm): Diameter at Breast Height measured using DBH tape or tree caliper. Crown Reserve (m): Average measurement of the diameter or width of the dripline (extent of branches from the trunk). Generally the trunk is trunk is the midpoint of this measurement. It is represented on the drawing(s) as a circle. This measurement may not be used in the subject jurisdiction. Condition (G, F, P, D): A qualitative score of the combination of biological health and structural condition assigned as Good, Fair, Poor or Dead. Rural / Urban : A recommendation of Preserve (P) or Remove ( R) is assigned to each tree or tree group based on anticipated impacts of these design options. A removal recommendation may be assigned due to conflict with the proposed development and the tree location, or significant impacts resulting from the development (e.g. severe encroachment into the root zone). Additional Notes: Further information may be provided in this column to support the condition assessment.

18 Appendix B Tree Assessment Data Appendix B

19 Project #: Project Name: Niska Road EA Appendix B: Tree Assessment: Data Sheet Assessor: Kevin Butt Date of Assessments: Dec. 9, 2014 & Jan. 2 & Jun. 2, 2015 Tree # Species Common Name DBH (cm) Crown Reserve (m) Rural Urban Condition (G,F,P,D) Additional Notes Niska Road Trees (Ptarmigan Drive to West of Bridge) 1 Fraxinus sp. Ash sp P P G(F) Leader broken (minor) 2 Picea pungens 'Glauca' Colorado Blue Spruce 14 3 P P G(F) 3 Picea pungens 'Glauca' Colorado Blue Spruce 10 2 P P G(F) 4 Picea pungens 'Glauca' Colorado Blue Spruce 10 2 P P G(F) 5 Picea pungens 'Glauca' Colorado Blue Spruce 12 2 P P G(F) 6 Picea pungens 'Glauca' Colorado Blue Spruce 14 2 P P G(F) 7 Picea pungens 'Glauca' Colorado Blue Spruce 12 2 P P G(F) 8 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 12 5 P P F Light suppressed (severe) 9 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine P P G 10 Picea glauca White Spruce 24 6 P P G(F) Unbalanced crown: severe, to the the north 11 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine 45 8 P P G 12 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine P P G 13 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine P P G 14 Malus pumila Apple 16,34 10 P P G(F) Crowded growth in crown (low), crooked trunk (low) 15 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 14,11,12 3 P P G(F) Forked trunk (3 stems at 0.5m) 16 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 12,14, Clump of stems from central base 8,6,8 P P 4 G(F) 17 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 10,8,6,6,4 3 P P G Clump 18 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 22,16 4 P P G 19 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 14,16,16 4 P P G 20 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 14 3 P P G 21 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 16 3 P P G 22 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 16,16 4 P P G 23 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 24,12,12 5 P P G 24 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 14,16 3 P P G 25 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 16,20 4 P P G Arborist Report Appendix B Tree Data 9/23/ :29 PM 1

20 Project #: Project Name: Niska Road EA Appendix B: Tree Assessment: Data Sheet Assessor: Kevin Butt Date of Assessments: Dec. 9, 2014 & Jan. 2 & Jun. 2, 2015 Tree # Species Common Name DBH (cm) Reserve (m) Rural Urban Condition (G,F,P,D) Additional Notes 26 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 15,12 3 P P G 27 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 14 3 P P G 28 Malus pumila Apple Crooked trunk (low), unbalanced crown R P 15 4 F 29 Juglans nigra Black Walnut R P G(F) 3 burls / swellings near base 30 Picea glauca White Spruce P P G 31 Picea glauca White Spruce 18 8 P P F Thin crown (low) 32 Picea glauca White Spruce R P G 33 Picea abies Norway Spruce P P G 34 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 10,10, Unbalanced crown: severe, to the the 11,8 R P 3 F southeast 35 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 32 8 R P G(F) Unbalanced crown: moderate to the the east 36 Tilia americana American Basswood R P G(F) Past pruning (low) 37 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 28 6 R P G 38 Acer saccharinum Silver Maple R P G 39 Prunus serotina Black Cherry 16 3 R P P Crown dieback (severe) 40 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 19 4 R P F Poor growth form (moderate) 41 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple R P G(F) 42 Tilia americana American Basswood 10 3 R R G 43 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 46 8 R P F Crown dieback (moderate) 44 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 40 6 R P F Poor growth form (moderate) 45 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple R P G(F) Leader broken (low) 46 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash P P G 47 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple R P G 48 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 25 5 P P G 49 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 32 6 P P G 50 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 27 6 P P G 51 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple R P G Arborist Report Appendix B Tree Data 9/23/ :29 PM 2

21 Project #: Project Name: Niska Road EA Appendix B: Tree Assessment: Data Sheet Assessor: Kevin Butt Date of Assessments: Dec. 9, 2014 & Jan. 2 & Jun. 2, 2015 Tree # Species Common Name DBH (cm) Reserve (m) Rural Urban Condition (G,F,P,D) Additional Notes 52 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash R P D 52A Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 14 4 R P G 52B Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 12 4 R P P Crown dieback (severe) 53 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 16 4 P P G 54 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 22 6 R P D Crown dieback (low) 55 Tilia americana American Basswood 18 5 R P F Trunk wound (moderate) 56 Morus alba White Mulberry 35,42 12 R P P Trunks split (severe) 57 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 23 6 P P G 58 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 12 4 R P G 59 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 21 8 R P F Crown dieback (moderate) 60 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple R P G 61 Dead Dead 35 R P D Cavities 62 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 36 7 R P F(P) Crown dieback (moderate) 63 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 32 8 R R G 64 Acer negundo Manitoba Maple R P F Lean: moderate to the south 65 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 45 8 R P G 66 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 42 8 R P G 67 Prunus serotina Black Cherry 14 3 R P F Crooked trunk (moderate) 68 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 15 3 R P G 69 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 42 4 R P G(F) 70 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 16,12 8 R P G 71 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 48 7 R P G 72 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 18 6 R R G 73 Populus grandidentata Largetooth Aspen 17 5 R R G 74 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Largetooth Aspen 12 4 R R G 75 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 12 4 R R G 76 Populus grandidentata Largetooth Aspen 14 5 R R G 77 Populus grandidentata Largetooth Aspen 18 5 R R G 78 Populus grandidentata Largetooth Aspen 21 7 R R G 79 Populus grandidentata Largetooth Aspen 25,26 8 R P G 80 Salix cf. fragilis Crack Willow R R G Arborist Report Appendix B Tree Data 9/23/ :29 PM 3

22 Project #: Project Name: Niska Road EA Appendix B: Tree Assessment: Data Sheet Assessor: Kevin Butt Date of Assessments: Dec. 9, 2014 & Jan. 2 & Jun. 2, 2015 Tree # Species Common Name DBH (cm) Reserve (m) Rural Urban Condition (G,F,P,D) Additional Notes 81 Populus grandidentata Largetooth Aspen 21 5 R R G 82 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 12 5 R P G 83 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 10 2 R R G 84 Fraxinus nigra Black Ash 12 3 R R P 5% Live Crown 85 Fraxinus nigra Black Ash 12 3 R R P Growing into fence (moderate), 10% live crown 86 Acer saccharinum Silver Maple 11 5 R R G 87 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 10 3 R R G 88 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 14 3 R R G 89 Salix cf. fragilis Crack Willow R R G 90 Prunus serotina Black Cherry 14 4 R R G 91 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 48 7 R R G 92 Acer negundo Manitoba Maple 16 5 R R F Growing into fence (Severe) 93 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 23 6 R P G 94 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 16 4 R P G Fence post wired to tree 95 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak P P G 96 Acer negundo Manitoba Maple 23 5 R P G Lean: low to the south 97 Juglans nigra Black Walnut R R G 98 Salix cf. amygdaloides Peachleaf Willow 60 8 R R P Severe decay, many broken trunks 99 Acer negundo Manitoba Maple 35,26 12 R P F Lean: Moderate to the south 100 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar Unbalanced crown: severe, to the the east 24 4 R P F 101 Thuja occidentalis (5 trees) Eastern White Cedar R P G 102 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 51 8 R P G 103 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 14 3 R P G(F) Tree #104 leaning against 104 Acer negundo Manitoba Maple 25 6 R P F Lean: moderate to the south 105 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 58 5 R R G(F) Unbalanced form (Moderate) 106 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 29 5 P P G 107 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 34,37 6 R P F Basal trunk damage Arborist Report Appendix B Tree Data 9/23/ :29 PM 4

23 Project #: Project Name: Niska Road EA Appendix B: Tree Assessment: Data Sheet Assessor: Kevin Butt Date of Assessments: Dec. 9, 2014 & Jan. 2 & Jun. 2, 2015 Tree # Species Common Name DBH (cm) Reserve (m) Rural Urban Condition (G,F,P,D) Additional Notes 108 Juglans nigra Black Walnut P P G 109 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 26,14 5 R P G 110 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 14,16 3 R P G 111 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 20,18,17,14 4 R P G(F) Wire in trunk 112 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 14,15 3 R R G 113 Acer negundo Manitoba Maple R R G(F) 114 Thuja occidentalis (33 trees) Eastern White Cedar R P G F 115 Picea glauca White Spruce 12 3 P P G In fenced area of SWMP 116 Picea glauca White Spruce 10 3 P P G In fenced area of SWMP 117 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 12 2 P P F In fenced area of SWMP 118 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 12 4 P P G In fenced area of SWMP 119 Malus pumila Apple 25,22 8 P P D Vine covered (Severe) 120 Ulmus americana White Elm 14 4 P P G 121 Ulmus americana White Elm 8 3 P P G At top of ditch slope 122 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 11 3 P P P Crown dieback (severe) 123 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 14 4 P P G At top of ditch slope 124 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 10 3 P P G 125 Ulmus americana White Elm P P G At top of ditch slope 126 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 29 7 P P G 127 Ulmus americana White Elm P P D Moderate trunk wound on 1 stem 128 Dead Dead P P D At top of ditch slope, 5 stems 129 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 14,12,8 4 R P F At top of ditch slope, severe trunk damage on 1 leader 130 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple R R G At top of ditch slope 131 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple R P F 1 of 2 leaders dead 132 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple P P G 133 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak P P G Arborist Report Appendix B Tree Data 9/23/ :29 PM 5

24 Project #: Project Name: Niska Road EA Appendix B: Tree Assessment: Data Sheet Assessor: Kevin Butt Date of Assessments: Dec. 9, 2014 & Jan. 2 & Jun. 2, 2015 Tree # Species Common Name DBH (cm) Reserve (m) Rural Urban Condition (G,F,P,D) Additional Notes 134 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 33 6 P P G 135 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 64 8 R R F(P) Severe trunk wound on 1 leader, at top of ditch slope 136 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 25 5 R R G(F) Trunk wound (moderate) 137 Tilia americana American Basswood 37 7 R R G At top of ditch slope 138 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 29 6 R R G At top of ditch slope 139 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 16 2 R R G At top of ditch slope 140 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 22 5 R R G At top of ditch slope 141 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 52 8 R P P Crown dieback (severe) 142 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 35 5 R P G 143 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 48 8 R P P 5% live crown 144 Thuja occidentalis (12 trees) Eastern White Cedar R P G 145 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak R P G 146 Dead Dead 25 P P D 147 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple P P G 148 Amelanchier sp. Serviceberry sp. 14,16 6 P P F(P) Trunk wound (severe), unbalanced crown: severe to the north 149 Acer negundo (7 trees) Manitoba Maple P P F Lean: moderate to the north for most stems 150 Ulmus americana White Elm P P G 151 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 56,33 10 P P G 152 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar P P G 153 Dead Dead 20 P P D 154 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 22 6 R P F 155 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 36 8 P P G Trunk wound (moderate) 156 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 30 6 R P G 157 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 26 4 R P G(F) 158 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 16 3 R P G(F) Crooked trunk (low) Arborist Report Appendix B Tree Data 9/23/ :29 PM 6

25 Project #: Project Name: Niska Road EA Appendix B: Tree Assessment: Data Sheet Assessor: Kevin Butt Date of Assessments: Dec. 9, 2014 & Jan. 2 & Jun. 2, 2015 Tree # Species Common Name DBH (cm) Reserve (m) Rural Urban Condition (G,F,P,D) Additional Notes 159 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 20 5 R P F Trunk split (moderate) 160 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 25 5 R P G 161 Dead Dead 32 R P D 162 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 14 3 R P G 163 Prunus serotina Black Cherry 29,24 8 R P G 164 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 40 8 P P G 165 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 24 6 P P G 166 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 22 5 R P G 167 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 28 6 P P G 168 Acer saccharum ssp. saccharum Sugar Maple 35 8 P P G 169 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash R P G 170 Dead Dead 53 R P D 171 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 30,14 3 R P G 172 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 18 2 P P G 173 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 16 2 P P G 174 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 14 2 R P G 175 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 28 6 R P G 176 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 18 4 R P G 177 Thuja occidentalis (3 trees) Eastern White Cedar 14 2 R P G 178 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak R P G 179 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 16,14 4 R P G 180 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 22 4 R P F Poor growth form (moderate), crooked trunk 181 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 32 3 R P G 182 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 40 5 R P G 183 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 42 5 R P F Top cut off at 4m 184 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 35 3 R P F Top cut off at 5m 185 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 33 4 R P G 186 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 25,18,20,25 4 R P F(P) Tree heavily pruned Arborist Report Appendix B Tree Data 9/23/ :29 PM 7

26 Project #: Project Name: Niska Road EA Appendix B: Tree Assessment: Data Sheet Assessor: Kevin Butt Date of Assessments: Dec. 9, 2014 & Jan. 2 & Jun. 2, 2015 Tree # Species Common Name DBH (cm) Reserve (m) Rural Urban Condition (G,F,P,D) Additional Notes 187 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 28,26 5 R P F Tops cut off at 5m 188 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 40 5 R P G 189 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 31,35,32 6 R P G(F) Tops cut off at 5m, 2 stumps 190 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 60,55 8 R P F Trunks fused or twisted 191 Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 28 5 R P G 192 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 35 5 R P G(F) Top cut off at 6m 193 Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 38 3 R R P 25% live crown, severe decay, tops cut at 6m 194 Fraxinus pennsylvanica (3 trees) Green Ash P P G At bottom of slope 195 Thuja occidentalis (group) Eastern White Cedar P P G Dense grouping 196 Thuja occidentalis (group) Eastern White Cedar P P G Dense grouping 197 Juglans nigra Black Walnut 12 5 P P G 3m from wall Trees Adjacent to Niska Road - Downey Road Intersection A Ulmus americana White Elm n/a n/a G At edge of wetland B Ulmus americana White Elm n/a n/a G At edge of wetland C Juglans regia ' Carparthian' Carpathian Walnut n/a n/a P Less than 5% live crown D Acer platanoides Norway Maple 16 7 n/a n/a F(P) Growing into fence E Ulmus americana White Elm 14 5 n/a n/a G Multiple sprouts, growing adjacent to fence F Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 12 2 n/a n/a G Growing adjacent to fence G Juglans regia ' Carparthian' Carpathian Walnut n/a n/a D Forked trunk (2 stems at 0.5m) H Acer platanoides Norway Maple 38 8 n/a n/a G In front yard of 54 Downey I Picea pungens 'Glauca' Colorado Blue Spruce 40 8 n/a n/a G In front yard of 54 Downey J Ulmus americana White Elm 18 8 n/a n/a G In stormwater pond K Acer platanoides Norway Maple 12 4 n/a n/a G In stormwater pond Arborist Report Appendix B Tree Data 9/23/ :29 PM 8

27 Appendix C Tree Studies: Limitations Appendix C

28 Tree Studies: Limitations This report, drawings and data (i.e., qualitative and quantitative measurements) are intended to inform the recipient and reviewer(s) of the report of the tree(s) condition at the time of the assessment. The assessment may be limited by the following constraints: 1. Access tree is located offsite, or the onsite location is not reasonably accessed. 2. Weather accumulated snow around the base or in branch attachments may obscure defects. 3. Season biotic indications (e.g., foliage chlorosis or fungal fruiting bodies) are only obvious for a portion of the year. 4. Visual obstructions Elements such as other trees canopies can prevent the view of the entire tree. The study is completed from the ground using a DBH tape or tree caliper. Non-invasive tools such as binoculars and a sounding hammer may be used to provide additional information about defects and characteristics. Excavation of the rootzone and other intensive analyses have not been completed unless stated. It must be understood that trees may not manifest signs or symptoms (e.g., dieback) of some impacts (e.g., root compaction) immediately and so recent changes to the tree or its growing conditions prior to the assessment may not be apparent to the assessor. Also, changes to the tree condition resulting from damage, weather, infestations, defects, soil, decay, light, moisture, exposure, etc. may occur after the assessment. No tree is without some level of risk, where a tree may fail and strike a target. Mitigation options, if provided, will not eliminate risk but are prescribed treatments to reduce risk based on the measured and assessed factors at the time of assessment, subject to site and assessment constraints. Identification of the ownership of assessed trees (i.e., on-site or off-site) made in the report is based on the legal survey. The assessor of trees uses the point location of the tree provided on the survey and the limits of property to assign ownership in the report and associated materials.