CONSTRUCTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT & TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN

PREPARED FOR: Merdyn Group of Companies 4038 Prospect Lake Road Victoria, BC V9E 1H7

PREPARED BY: Talmack Urban Forestry Consultants Ltd. Robert McRae – Consulting Arborist ISA Certified # PN-7125A Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Tree Appraisal Qualified

DATE OF ISSUANCE: September 6, 2024

---

CONTENTS

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

TABLES

TABLE 1. TREE INVENTORY

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

---

5. SITE INFORMATION & PROJECT UNDERSTANDING

The development site consists of three residential lots (14/14A Helmcken Road & 6 Camden Avenue) in View Royal, B.C., which has two existing residences. It is our understanding that the proposal is to demolish the existing structures and driveway, as well as decommission existing services, followed by construction of a new multi-unit townhouse complex. 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.

Below is a general observation of the tree resource, as it appeared at the time of our site visit(s):

6. FIELD OBSERVATIONS

The on and off-site tree resource consists of a mixture of native and non-native species growing in open landscape conditions (see Figure 1):

---

7. TREE RISK ASSESSMENT

During our October 7 (2022) site visit and in conjunction with the tree inventory, on-site trees were assessed for risk on a limited visual basis (level 1), in the context of the existing land uses. The time frame used for the purpose of our assessment is one year (from the date of this report). Unless otherwise noted herein, we did not conduct a detailed (level 2) or advanced (level 3) risk assessment, such as resistograph testing, increment core sampling, aerial examinations, or subsurface root/root collar examinations.

Existing Land Uses

We did not observe any trees that were deemed to be moderate, high, or extreme risk (in the context of the existing land uses, which would require hazard abatement to eliminate present and/or future risks) within a 1-year timeframe. Targets considered during this TRAQ assessment include: occupants of the existing residences on-site and neighbour’s (constant use), occupants of vehicles travelling or parked on Helmcken Road and Camden Avenue (frequent use), pedestrians travelling along the existing sidewalk along Helmcken Road (occasional use), occupants of front, rear, and side yards on-site and neighbour’s (occasional use), hydro lines (constant use).

8. CONSTRUCTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.1. RETENTION AND REMOVAL OF MUNICIPAL TREES

The following municipal trees (indicated by ID#) are located where they may be possible for retention provided that the critical root zones are adequately protected during construction. The project arborist must be on site to supervise any excavation or fill placement required within the critical root zones—shown on the tree management plan in Appendix A:

Retain and protect nine (9) municipal trees

• M1*, M2*, M4*, M5*, M6*, M7*, M8*, M9*, M11
• Indicates retention status TBD. See Section 8.1.1.

The following municipal trees (indicated by ID and/or tag#) are located where they are likely to be severely impacted by construction and are proposed for removal:

Remove and replace three (3) municipal trees

• M3, M10, #2001 Please note, #2001 is a “boundary tree” as defined by Bylaw No. 1069, with ownership shared by the subject property and the town.

8.1.1. ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES FOR M1-M2, M4-6, M7-9, AND M11

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) M1 and Garry Oaks (Quercus garryana) M2 & M4—these trees have been assigned the retention status “to be determined (TBD)” due to potential impacts from sidewalk installation and proposed grade changes (M4):

• We anticipate large roots from M1, M2, and M4 may be encountered during excavations for installation of the proposed sidewalks and patios within the CRZs. We recommend hard surfaces be installed above the root systems as outlined within Appendix B: “Hard Surfaces Above Tree Roots Detail.” Given the existing sidewalk and curb are comprised of above grade asphalt, we anticipate the necessary grade adjustments could be feasible. In some areas, it may be possible to install the new sidewalk above the existing. The civil plan also specifies efforts to retain existing trees, with a sidewalk bend to avoid M4—given the proposed removal of M3, we recommend bend begin 6.5-7m (an additional 2-3m) of south M4’s trunk to preserve as much undisturbed rooting space as possible.
• The project arborist must supervise any excavations related to retaining wall installation within the CRZ of M2 (proposed approximately 3.5m north of the root collar).
• We anticipate large roots may be encountered and require pruning during installation of the new retaining wall within the CRZ of M4 (proposed approximately 2.7m of the root collar).
• The project arborist shall supervise all excavations within the CRZs of these trees and determine the final retention status based on the size and quantity of roots encountered (that require pruning). We may also recommend continued monitoring for any changes to health and structural conditions following construction.

Shore Pine (Pinus contorta var. contorta) M5 & Arbutus (Arbutus menziesii) M6: We anticipate large roots from these trees may be encountered during excavations required for installation of the proposed municipal sidewalks within the CRZs. We recommend surfaces be installed above the root systems as outlined within Appendix B: “Hard Surfaces Above Tree Roots Detail,” if surrounding grades can be compatible. Given the proximity of this stretch of sidewalk to the pedestrian crossing, we anticipate some root pruning may be required to facilitate sloping—this pruning should be completed by the project arborist.

• It is our understanding that above-ground utility boxes within the CRZs of M5 & M6 (see Appendix C – Site Photographs) will remain in place. However, the existing fire hydrant is proposed for relocation an additional 1.75m nearer to M6—any excavations therein should be supervised by the project arborist.
• The civil plans also show a new bike lane along Camden Avenue, which will effectively widen the road by approximately 1.5m. Large roots from M6 may be encountered during excavations related to curb/gutter and road surfacing.
• The landscape plans also show fence installation and grade changes within the CRZs. If critical roots are encountered during excavations therein, adjustments to footing locations or grades may be required to preserve these structures.
• The project arborist shall determine the final retention status of these trees based on the size and quantity of roots encountered (that require pruning).

Sections of Leyland Cypress (Cuprocyparis leylandii) hedge M7 will require removal to install the proposed driveway—we estimate 50% (approximately 5 stems):

• If retention of the remaining stems is desired: to ensure the stability of the remaining hedge row, we recommend stumps be removed under the direction of the project arborist. If retained, additional pruning may also be required to facilitate installation of the proposed bike lane—excavations therein should also be supervised by the project arborist.
• The project arborist shall determine the final retention status based on the size and quantity of roots that require pruning, as well as cumulative impacts from pruning.

It is our understanding that hydro service for the proposed buildings will be routed underground, though plans were not available for this assessment. Horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) M8 grows near the existing power pole on the Camden Avenue frontage, which appears to be the most likely location for connection to electrical service. If this is the case, M8 is likely to require removal:

• In general, we recommend underground hydro be installed outside the CRZs of protected trees, though the location of M8 (beneath transmission lines), large mature canopy size, and existing structural defects are likely to inhibit its ability to reach maturity. If M8 is retained during/after development, the project arborist shall also supervise all excavations within the CRZ and determine the final retention status based on the size and quantity of roots encountered (that require pruning). The project arborist should be contacted to review proposed underground hydro locations once these plans become available.

Sections of Leyland Cypress hedge M9 may require substantial pruning to install the proposed bike lane and municipal sidewalk:

• Excavations related to curb/gutter and road installation should also supervised by the project arborist. The project arborist shall determine the final retention status based on the size and quantity of roots that require pruning, as well as cumulative impacts from pruning.

The project arborist should be contacted to supervise the installation of the proposed sidewalk and bike lane within the CRZ of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) M11.

8.2. RETENTION AND REMOVAL OF ON-SITE TREES

The following bylaw-protected on-site trees (indicated by tag #) are located where they are likely to be severely impacted by construction and are proposed for removal:

Remove eight (8) bylaw-protected on-site trees

• #2002, 2004-2005, 2007, 2012-2015

The following non-protected on-site trees (indicated by tag #) are located where they are likely to be severely impacted by construction and are proposed for removal:

Remove six (6) non-protected on-site trees

• #2003, 2006, 2008-2011

8.2.1. ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES FOR DEMOLITION

If trees must be retained during the demolition phase, removal of the existing houses, driveways, and any services that must be removed or abandoned, must take the critical root zones of the trees to be retained into account. If any excavation or machine access is required within the critical root zones of trees to be retained, it must be completed under the supervision and direction of the project arborist.

To isolate the CRZs of municipal trees M4-M6, we recommend protective barrier fencing is erected and maintained throughout the demolition timeframe—shown on the tree management plan in Appendix A. Temporary construction panels may be used (pending municipal approval), provided the appropriate signage is attached. If temporarily removed for demolition, barrier fencing for trees to be retained (throughout and following the construction timeframe) must be erected immediately after the supervised demolition.

For on-site trees, we recommend the project arborist meet with the contractor prior to demolition, rather than installing extensive, temporary barrier fencing. The existing driveways should be left in place until the end of the demolition phase—to be used as primary access points and to act as root armouring.

8.3. RETENTION AND REMOVAL OF OFF-SITE TREES

The following bylaw-protected off-site trees (indicated by ID#) are located where they may be possible for retention provided that the critical root zones can be adequately protected during construction:

Retain and protect two (2) bylaw-protected off-site trees

• OS2*, OS3
• Indicates retention status TBD. See Section 8.3.1.

The following non-protected off-site trees (indicated by ID#) are located where they may be possible for retention provided that the critical root zones can be adequately protected during construction:

Retain and protect one (1) non-protected off-site tree

• OS1

8.3.1 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES FOR OS1-OS3

• The new building footprint is proposed within the CRZs of tulip trees (Liriodendron tulipfera) OS2 & OS3. We anticipate over-excavation will also encroach within the CRZ of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) OS1.
  • We recommend excavation be limited to 1m outside the building footprint within the CRZ of OS2 and 2.5m outside the footprint (effectively the south property line) within the CRZ of OS1.
  • The project arborist shall supervise all excavations within the CRZs of these trees and determine the final retention status based on the size and quantity of roots encountered (that require pruning). We may also recommend continued monitoring for any changes to health and stability following construction.
• In addition to arborist supervision required for all excavations within the CRZ of OS2, we anticipate some clearance pruning (see Appendix C – Site Photographs) to accommodate the south walls of the proposed building. We recommend this work be performed by an ISA Certified Arborist to ANSI A300 standards. The project arborist shall determine the final retention status of OS2 based on the size and quantity of roots encountered (that require pruning).

*The tree owner(s) should be notified of potential impacts. Prior written consent from the tree owner(s) is required prior to the removal of any trees located on neighbouring properties.

---

8.4. TREE IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE

Pursuant to View Royal bylaw No. 1069, the tree replacement calculations are as follows:

Based on bylaw criteria, sixteen (16) replacement trees are required on-site as compensation for the removal of eight (8) protected trees, with an additional six (6) replacement trees required as compensation for the removal of three (3) town-owned trees. The landscape plan proposes twenty-two (22) replacement trees on-site, which meets the total for replacement trees required, if on-site plantings are accepted as compensation for trees removed on town property. Any replacement tree shortfall shall be compensated cash-in-lieu.

---

9. IMPACT MITIGATION

Tree Protection Barrier: The areas, surrounding the trees to be retained should be isolated from the construction activity by erecting protective barrier fencing (see Appendix A for municipal barrier specifications). Where possible, the fencing should be erected at the perimeter of the critical root zone. The barrier fencing to be erected must be a minimum of 4 feet in height, of solid frame construction that is attached to wooden or metal posts. A solid board or rail must run between the posts at the top and the bottom of the fencing. This solid frame can then be covered with flexible snow fencing. The fencing must be erected prior to the start of any construction activity on site (i.e., demolition, excavation, construction), and remain in place through completion of the project. Signs should be posted around the protection zone to declare it off limits to all construction related activity. The project arborist must be consulted before this fencing is removed or moved for any purpose.

Arborist Supervision: All excavation occurring within the critical root zones of protected trees should be completed under supervision by the project arborist. Any severed or severely damaged roots must be pruned back to sound tissue to reduce wound surface area and encourage rapid compartmentalization of the wound. In particular, the following activities should be completed under the direction of the project arborist:

• Any excavations or additions of fill within the CRZs of protected trees.

Methods to Avoid Soil Compaction: In areas where construction traffic must encroach into the critical root zones of trees to be retained, efforts must be made to reduce soil compaction where possible by displacing the weight of machinery and foot traffic. This can be achieved by one of the following methods:

• Installing a layer of hog fuel or coarse wood chips at least 20 cm in depth and maintaining it in good condition until construction is complete.
• Placing medium weight geotextile cloth over the area to be used and installing a layer of crushed rock to a depth of 15-20 cm over top.
• Placing two layers of 19mm plywood.
• Placing steel plates.

Demolition of the Existing Buildings: The demolition of the existing houses, driveways, and any services that must be removed or abandoned, must take the critical root zone of the trees to be retained into account. If any excavation or machine access is required within the critical root zones of trees to be retained, it must be completed under the supervision and direction of the project arborist. If temporarily removed for demolition, barrier fencing must be erected immediately after the supervised demolition.

Paved Surfaces Above Tree Roots: If the new paved surfaces within the CRZ of tree to be retained require excavation down to bearing soil and roots are encountered in this area, this could impact their health and structural stability. If tree retention is desired, a raised and permeable paved surface should be constructed in the areas within the critical root zone of the trees. The “paved surfaces above root systems” diagram and specifications is attached.

The objective is to avoid root loss and to instead raise the paved surface and its base layer above the roots. This may result in the grade of the paved surface being raised above the existing grade (the amount depending on how close roots are to the surface and the depth of the paving material and base layers). Final grading plans should take this potential change into account. This may also result in soils which are high in organic content being left intact below the paved area.

To allow water to drain into the root systems below, we also recommend that the surface be made of a permeable material (instead of conventional asphalt or concrete) such as permeable asphalt, paving stones, or other porous paving materials and designs such as those utilized by Grasspave, Gravelpave, Grasscrete and open-grid systems.

Mulching: Mulching can be an important proactive step in maintaining the health of trees and mitigating construction related impacts and overall stress. Mulch should be made from a natural material such as wood chips or bark pieces and be 5-8cm deep. No mulch should be touching the trunk of the tree. See “methods to avoid soil compaction” if the area is to have heavy traffic.

Blasting: Care must be taken to ensure that the area of blasting does not extend beyond the necessary footprints and into the critical root zones of surrounding trees. The use of small low-concussion charges and multiple small charges designed to pre-shear the rock face will reduce fracturing, ground vibration, and overall impact on the surrounding environment. Only explosives of low phytotoxicity and techniques that minimize tree damage should be used. Provisions must be made to ensure that blasted rock and debris are stored away from the critical root zones of trees.

Scaffolding: This assessment has not included impacts from potential scaffolding including canopy clearance pruning requirements. If scaffolding is necessary and this will require clearance pruning of retained trees, the project arborist should be consulted. Depending on the extent of pruning required, the project arborist may recommend that alternatives to full scaffolding be considered such as hydraulic lifts, ladders, or platforms. Methods to avoid soil compaction may also be recommended (see “Minimizing Soil Compaction” section).

Landscaping and Irrigation Systems: The planting of new trees and shrubs should not damage the roots of retained trees. The installation of any in-ground irrigation system must consider the critical root zones of the trees to be retained. Prior to installation, we recommend the irrigation technician consult with the project arborist about the most suitable locations for the irrigation lines and how best to mitigate the impacts on the trees to be retained. This may require the project arborist supervise the excavations associated with installing the irrigation system. Excessive frequent irrigation and irrigation which wets the trunks of trees can have a detrimental impact on tree health and can lead to root and trunk decay.

Arborist Role: It is the responsibility of the client or his/her representative to contact the project arborist for the purpose of:

• Locating the barrier fencing
• Reviewing the report with the project foreman or site supervisor
• Locating work zones, where required
• Supervising any excavation within the critical root zones of trees to be retained
• Reviewing and advising of any pruning requirements for machine clearances

Review and site meeting: Once the project receives approval, it is important that the project arborist meet with the principals involved in the project to review the information contained herein. It is also important that the arborist meet with the site foreman or supervisor before any site clearing, tree removal, demolition, or other construction activity occurs and to confirm the locations of the tree protection barrier fencing.

---

10. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

This arboricultural field review report was prepared by Talmack Urban Forestry Consultants Ltd. for the exclusive use of the Client and may not be reproduced, used, or relied upon, in whole or in part, by a party other than the Client without the prior written consent of Talmack Urban Forestry Consultants Ltd. Any unauthorized use of this report, or any part hereof, by a third party, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are at the sole risk of such third parties. Talmack Urban Forestry Consultants Ltd. accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report, in whole or in part.

Arborists are professionals who examine trees and use their training, knowledge, and experience to recommend techniques and procedures that will improve a tree’s health and structure or to mitigate associated risks. Trees are living organisms whose health and structure change and are influenced by age, continued growth, climate, weather conditions, and insect and disease pathogens. Indicators of structural weakness and disease are often hidden within the tree structure or beneath the ground. The arborist’s review is limited to a visual examination of tree health and structural condition, without excavation, probing, resistance drilling, increment coring, or aerial examination. There are inherent limitations to this type of investigation, including, without limitation, that some tree conditions will inadvertently go undetected. The arborist’s review followed the standard of care expected of arborists undertaking similar work in British Columbia under similar conditions. No warranties, either express or implied, are made as to the services provided and included in this report.

The findings and opinions expressed in this report are based on the conditions that were observed on the noted date of the field review only. The Client recognizes that passage of time, natural occurrences, and direct or indirect human intervention at or near the trees may substantially alter discovered conditions and that Talmack Urban Forestry Consultants Ltd. cannot report on, or accurately predict, events that may change the condition of trees after the described investigation was completed.

It is not possible for an Arborist to identify every flaw or condition that could result in failure, nor can he/she guarantee that the tree will remain healthy and free of risk. The only way to eliminate tree risk entirely is to remove the entire tree. All trees retained should be monitored on a regular basis. Remedial care and mitigation measures recommended are based on the visible and detectable indicators present at the time of the examination and cannot be guaranteed to alleviate all symptoms or to mitigate all risk posed.

Immediately following land clearing, grade changes or severe weather events, all trees retained should be reviewed for any evidence of soil heaving, cracking, lifting or other indicators of root plate instability. If added information is discovered in the future during such events or other activities, Talmack Urban Forestry Consultants Ltd. should be requested to re-evaluate the conclusions of this report and to provide amendments as required prior to any reliance upon the information presented herein.

---

11. IN CLOSING

We trust that this report meets your needs. Should there be any questions regarding the information within this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Yours truly, Talmack Urban Forestry Consultants Ltd.

Prepared by: Robert McRae ISA Certified Arborist PN – 7125A Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Tree Appraisal Qualified Email: Robbie@Talmack.ca

---

12. REFERENCES

Dunster, J.A., E.T. Smiley, N. Matheny, and S. Lily. 2017. Tree Risk Assessment Manual, International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). The Town of View Royal Tree Preservation Bylaw No. 1069.

---

13. COMPANY INFORMATION

General Liability: Intact Insurance, Policy No. 5V2147122 : $5,000,000

---

APPENDIX A - TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN

TREE PROTECTION NOTES

Tree protection barrier: The areas, surrounding the trees to be retained, should be isolated from the construction activity by erecting protective barrier fencing. Where possible, the fencing should be erected at the perimeter of the critical root zone. The barrier fencing to be erected must be a minimum of 1200mm in height, of solid frame construction that is attached to wooden or metal posts. A solid board or rail must run between the posts at the top and the bottom of the fencing. This solid frame can then be covered with flexible snow fencing. The fencing must be erected prior to the start of any construction activity on site (i.e. demolition, excavation, construction), and remain in place through completion of the project. Signs should be posted around the protection zone to declare it off limits to all construction related activity. The project arborist must be consulted before this fencing is removed or moved for any purpose.

Arborist supervision: All excavation occurring within the critical root zones of protected trees must be completed under the supervision of the project arborist. Any severed or severely damaged roots must be pruned back to sound tissue to reduce wound surface area and encourage rapid compartmentalization of the wound.

Demolition: The demolition of the existing houses, driveways, and any services that must be removed or abandoned must take the critical root zone of the trees to be retained into account. If any excavation or machine access is required within the critical root zones of trees to be retained, it must be completed under the supervision of the project arborist. If temporarily removed for demolition, barrier fencing must be erected immediately after the supervised demolition.

Methods to avoid soil compaction: In areas where construction traffic must encroach into the critical root zones of trees to be retained, efforts must be made to reduce soil compaction where possible by displacing the weight of machinery and foot traffic. This can be achieved by one of the following methods:

• Installing a layer of hog fuel or coarse wood chips at least 20cm in depth and maintaining it in good condition until construction is complete.
• Placing medium weight geotextile cloth over the area to be used and installing a layer of crushed rock to a depth of 15cm over top.
• Placing two layers of 19mm plywood.
• Placing steel plates.

Mulching: Mulching can be an important proactive step in maintaining the health or trees and mitigating construction related impacts and overall stress. Mulch should be made from a natural material such as wood chips or bark pieces and be 5-8cm deep. No mulch should be touching the trunk of the tree. See "methods to avoid soil compaction" if the area is to have heavy traffic.

Pruning: We recommend that any pruning of bylaw-protected trees be performed to ANSI A300 standards and Best Management Practices.

Paved surfaces above tree roots: Where paved areas cannot avoid encroachment within critical root zones of trees to be retained, construction techniques, such as floating permeable paving, may be required. The "paved surfaces above tree roots'' detail above offers a compromise to full depth excavation (which could impact the health or structural stability of the tree). The objective is to avoid root loss and to instead raise the paved surface above the existing grade (the amount depending on how close roots are to the surface and the depth of the paving material and base layers). Final grading plans should take this potential change into account. This may also result in soils which are high in organic content being left intact below the paved area. To allow water to drain into the root systems below, we also recommend that the surface be made of a permeable material (instead of conventional asphalt or concrete) such as permeable asphalt, paving stones, or other porous paving materials and designs such as those utilized by Grasspave, Gravelpave, Grasscrete and open-grid systems.

Blasting and rock removal: Care must be taken to ensure that the area of blasting does not extend beyond the necessary footprints and into the critical root zones of surrounding trees. The use of small low-concussion charges and multiple small charges designed to pre-shear the rock face will reduce fracturing, ground vibrations and overall impact to the surrounding environment. Only explosives of low phytotoxicity and techniques that minimize tree damage should be used. Provisions must be made to ensure that blasted rock and debris are stored away from the critical root zones of trees.

Scaffolding: This assessment has not included impacts from potential scaffolding including canopy clearance pruning requirements. If scaffolding is necessary and this will require clearance pruning of retained trees, the project arborist should be consulted. Depending on the extent of pruning required, the project arborist may recommend that alternatives to full scaffolding be considered such as hydraulic lifts, ladders or platforms. Methods to avoid soil compaction may also be recommended (see "Minimizing Soil Compaction" section).

Landscaping and irrigation systems: The planting of new trees and shrubs should not damage the roots of retained trees. The installation of any in-ground irrigation system must take into account the critical root zones of the trees to be retained. Prior to installation, we recommend the irrigation technical consult with the project arborist about the most suitable locations for the irrigation lines and how best to mitigate the impacts on the trees to be retained. This may require the project arborist supervise the excavations associated with installing the irrigation system. Excessive frequent irrigation and irrigation which wets the trunks of trees can have a detrimental impact on the tree health and can lead to root and trunk decay.

Arborists role: It is the responsibility of the client or his/her representative to contact the project arborist for the purpose of:

• Locating the barrier fencing.
• Reviewing the report with the project foreman or site supervisor.
• Locating work zones and machine access corridors where required.
• Supervising excavation for any areas within the critical root zones of trees to be retained including any proposed retaining wall footings and review any proposed fill areas near trees to be retained.

LEGEND

• Existing tree with tag or ID #
• Tree protection fencing
• Dripline radius (m)
• Critical root zone radius (m)
• X: Tree proposed for removal
• Unsurveyed tree
• Non-protected onsite tree
• Site boundary

Project Details:

• DATE: September 6, 2024
• PREPARED FOR: Merdyn Group
• SCALE: 1 : 250 @ 11" X 17"
• DRAWN BY: RM
• REVISION: 1
• REFERENCE DWG: 2024-09-05 21-077-DESIGN (Civil)

---

APPENDIX B – HARD SURFACES ABOVE TREE ROOTS DIAGRAM

HARD SURFACE ABOVE TREE ROOTS DETAIL

HARD SURFACE ABOVE TREE ROOTS NOTES

1. Maintain as large a setback between the fill encroachment and the root collar of the tree as possible.
2. Review any canopy clearance pruning requirements to accommodate vehicle or pedestrian clearances (Pruning to be performed to ANSI A300 standards).
3. Excavate the new footprint of the driveway or sidewalk under the supervision of the project arborist. Excavation will be limited to the removal of the existing sod layer. Excavation around root structures must be performed by hand, airspade, or hydroexcavation.
4. Install a two-dimensional (such as Combigrid 3030) or Three-dimensional geogrid reinforcement.
5. Install a 150mm depth layer of clear crushed gravel (no fines) using 20mm and/or 75mm diameter material or approved equivalent. *Note - the depth may be less than 150mm in some situations (dependant on grading constraints).
6. Install 4 oz non woven geotextile over the clear crushed gravel layer to prevent fine particles of sand from infiltrating this layer.
7. The bedding or base layer and new driveway or sidewalk surface can be installed directly on top of the felted filter fabric.
8. Fill slopes - where possible install loose stacked boulders to reduce the footprint of the fill slopes that encroach within the critical root zone. Fill slope materials must be permeable to air and water. Do not pile fill material directly against the trunk of a tree.

---

APPENDIX C – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Photographs 1-4: Garry Oak M2 canopy north perspective (upper left); south perspective (upper right) with Douglas-firs #2001 and M1 in foreground; Garry Oak M4 canopy north perspective (lower left); south perspective (lower right) with Douglas-fir #2002 (proposed for removal) in foreground.

Photograph 5: Shore Pine M5 (red arrow) and Arbutus M6 (yellow arrow) with utility boxes within their CRZs.

Photographs 6 & 7: Off-site Tulip Trees OS2 (red arrow) and OS3 (yellow arrow) with extended limb from OS2 (right, red arrow) likely to require pruning to the branch collar.