Construction Impact Assessment & Tree Management Plan

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
2. TREE INVENTORY METHODOLOGY........................................................................................... 1
3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1
4. TREE INVENTORY DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................... 2
5. SITE INFORMATION & PROJECT UNDERSTANDING .................................................................... 7
6. FIELD OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................................... 7
7. TREE RISK ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................... 8
8. CONSTRUCTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT..................................................................................... 8 8.1. RETENTION AND REMOVAL OF MUNICIPAL TREES ................................................................................................8 8.1.1. ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES FOR M1-M2, M4-6, M7-9, AND M11..............................................................8 8.2. RETENTION AND REMOVAL OF ON-SITE TREES..................................................................................................10 8.2.1. ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES FOR DEMOLITION.........................................................................................10 8.3. RETENTION AND REMOVAL OF OFF-SITE TREES.................................................................................................11 8.3.1 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES FOR OS1-OS3...........................................................................................11 8.4. TREE IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE........................................................................................................................12
9. IMPACT MITIGATION............................................................................................................. 12
10. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 14
11. IN CLOSING......................................................................................................................... 15
12. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 15
13. COMPANY INFORMATION ...................................................................................................... 16

TABLES

TABLE 1. TREE INVENTORY ....................................................................................................................................................4

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX B HARD SURFACES ABOVE TREE ROOTS DIAGRAM APPENDIX C SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

REVISION RECORD

---

1. INTRODUCTION

Talmack Urban Forestry Consultants Ltd. was engaged to complete a tree inventory, construction impact assessment and tree management plan for the trees at the following proposed project:

• Site: 14/14A Helmcken Road & 6 Camden Avenue
• Municipality: Town of View Royal
• Client Name: Merdyn Group
• Dates of Site Visit(s): October 7, 2022 (initial inventory)
• Site Conditions: 3 relatively flat residential lots with no ongoing construction activity.
• Weather During Site Visit: Clear and sunny

The purpose of this report is to address requirements of the Town of View Royal arborist report terms of reference and bylaw No. 1069. The construction impact assessment section of this report (Section 8) is based on plans reviewed to date, including site survey by JE Anderson & Associates (dated August 29, 2022), building plans (for coordination only) from Union Architecture (dated August 12, 2024), landscape plan from Greenspace Designs (dated September 3, 2024), and preliminary site servicing plans from McElhanney (dated September 5, 2024). At this time, hydro servicing plans were not available for review, though we anticipate an underground connection via the existing power pole on the Camden Avenue frontage.

2. TREE INVENTORY METHODOLOGY

For the purposes of this report: the size, health, and structural condition of trees were documented. For ease of identification in the field, numerated metal tags are attached to the lower trunks of onsite trees. Trees located on neighbouring properties, the municipal frontage or in areas where access was restricted, were not tagged. Each tree was visually examined on a limited visual assessment basis (level 1), in accordance with Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) methods (Dunster et al. 2017) and ISA Best Management Practices.

3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Based on review of the building plans, eight (8) on-site bylaw-protected trees and three (3) municipal or shared municipal trees are likely to required removal due to impacts from the proposed construction. An additional eight (8) municipal trees and hedges have been assigned the retention status “to be determined (TBD)” at the time of construction.

As per Section 5—Part 5.17 of Bylaw No. 1069, the eight (8) protected on-site trees and three (3) town-owned trees proposed for removal shall be replaced at a 2:1 ratio—a total of sixteen (16) replacement trees will be required on site, with an additional six (6) on town property.

At this time, hydro servicing plans were not available for review, though we anticipate an underground connection via the existing power pole on the Camden Avenue frontage. A preliminary impact assessment is included in Section 8.1.1. The project arborist should be contacted to review proposed underground hydro locations once these plans become available.

---

4. TREE INVENTORY DEFINITIONS

Tag: Tree identification number on a metal tag attached to tree with nail or wire, generally at eye level. Trees on municipal or neighboring properties are not tagged.

NT: No tag due to inaccessibility or ownership by municipality or neighbour.

DBH: Diameter at breast height – diameter of trunk, measured in centimetres at 1.4m above ground level. For trees on a slope, it is taken at the average point between the high and low side of the slope.

• Measured over ivy ~ Approximate due to inaccessibility or on neighbouring property

Dripline: Indicates the radius of the crown spread measured in metres to the dripline of the longest limbs.

Relative Tolerance Rating: Relative tolerance of the tree species to construction related impacts such as root pruning, crown pruning, soil compaction, hydrology changes, grade changes, and other soil disturbance. This rating does not consider individual tree characteristics, such as health and vigor. Three ratings are assigned based on our knowledge and experience with the tree species: Poor (P), Moderate (M) or Good (G).

Critical Root Zone: A calculated radial measurement in metres from the trunk of the tree. It is the optimal size of tree protection zone and is calculated by multiplying the DBH of the tree by 10, 12 or 15 depending on the tree’s Relative Tolerance Rating. This methodology is based on the methodology used by Nelda Matheny and James R. Clark in their book “Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development.”

• 15 x DBH = Poor Tolerance of Construction
• 12 x DBH = Moderate
• 10 x DBH = Good

To calculate the critical root zone, the DBH of multiple stems is considered the sum of 100% of the diameter of the largest stem and 60% of the diameter of the next two largest stems. It should be noted that these measures are solely mathematical calculations that do not consider factors such as restricted root growth, limited soil volumes, age, crown spread, health, or structure (such as a lean).

Health Condition:

• Poor – significant signs of visible stress and/or decline that threaten the long-term survival of the specimen
• Fair – signs of stress
• Good – no visible signs of significant stress and/or only minor aesthetic issues

Structural Condition:

• Poor – Structural defects that have been in place for an extended period of time to the point that mitigation measures are limited
• Fair – Structural concerns that are possible to mitigate through pruning
• Good – No visible or only minor structural flaws that require no to very little pruning

Suitability ratings are described as follows:

Rating: Suitable.

• A tree with no visible or minor health or structural defects, is tolerant to changes to the growing environment and is a possible candidate for retention provided that the critical root zone can be adequately protected.

Rating: Conditional.

• A tree with good health but is a species with a poor tolerance to changes to its growing environment or has a structural defect(s) that would require that certain measures be implemented, in order to consider it suitable for retention (i.e., retain with other codominant tree(s), structural pruning, mulching, supplementary watering, etc.)

Rating: Unsuitable.

• A tree with poor health, a major structural defect (that cannot be mitigated using ANSI A300 standards), or a species with a poor tolerance to construction impacts, and unlikely to survive long term (in the context of the proposed land use changes).

Retention Status:

• Remove – Not possible to retain given proposed construction plans
• Retain – It is possible to retain this tree in the long-term given the proposed plans and information available. This is assuming our recommended mitigation measures are followed
• Retain * - See report for more information regarding potential impacts
• TBD - Retention status “to be determined” at the time of construction

---

TABLE 1. TREE INVENTORY