DocumentsAppendixOct 10, 2023Pages 42–59
Arborist Report — 3405 Happy Valley Road (Capital Tree Service Inc.)
Arborist assessment (July 21, 2023; revised July 28, 2023) documenting a tree inventory and condition assessment for 3405 Happy Valley Road, identifying high-risk trees, recommended removals and tree protection and replacement measures for the proposed development.
Key facts
- Total trees assessed: 109 (all within Habitat and Biodiversity Development Permit Area)
- Recommended removals: majority of trees (report identifies ~95 proposed for removal due to health/location)
- Noted issues: suspected Phellinus weirii (laminated root rot) in many firs; many trees shallowly rooted on bedrock and in decline
- Replacement/tree mitigation guidance: replacement tree requirements by size class and detailed tree protection plan (TPF fencing, project arborist oversight, mitigation for blasting, excavation protocols)
- Report date and acknowledgement: July 28, 2023; signed/acknowledged by client (TEKloch Homes)
Arborist Report — 3405 Happy Valley Road, Langford, BC V9C 2X9
July 21, 2023
Revised July 28, 2023
Prepared for: TEKloch Homes
Prepared by: Capital Tree Service Inc.
310-777 Royal Oak Dr, PO Box 53512, Victoria BC, V8X 5K2
Ph: 250-217-8370, email: joelcreese@capitaltreeservice.ca
capitaltreeservice.ca
GST # 861289783RT0001
WSBC Account #713323
Liability and Professional E and O, HSM Insurance - $5 Million
Summary/Scope of Work
Capital Tree Service Inc. (CTS) was contacted by John Sercombe of TEKloch Homes (Client), a local development firm, regarding a strata development at 3405 Happy Valley Road (the Site) in the city of Langford. The Client has requested that CTS provide an Arborist Report regarding the trees on the site. A tree inventory is included as Appendix ‘A’. Photographs and a Site Plan are included as Appendix ‘B’ of this report.
Methodology
The Site was entered on March 7, 2023 by CTS for the purpose of conducting tree assessments and collecting inventory. Joel Creese and Ray Praud, a consulting arborists and representatives of CTS, provided the BVTA for the site. The weather that day was 8°C and Overcast with a 10km/h South Breeze.
The Site was assessed from grade. No form of diagnostic tools or invasive techniques were used during the assessment, including excavation or assessment of roots below. Diameters were measured using a Richter Diameter Tape. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) was measured approximately 1.4m above grade. Measurements and observations were recorded with the intent to provide a static representation of the area. A tree inventory is included as Appendix ‘A’ of this report. Photographs and a Site Plan are included as Appendix ‘B’ of this report.
During the assessment, one hundred and nine (109) trees of concern were observed – all (109) of which are protected as they are located within a Habitat and Biodiversity Development Permit Area. Trees referenced in Appendix ‘A’ and located on the site have been tagged. Tags are located approximately 1.5-2m above grade on tree stems and were visible at the time of assessment.
Protected Root Zone calculations are based on the ISA recommended one foot for each one inch of trunk diameter (0.3m for each 2.5 cm). Matheny and Clark’s ‘Trees and Development’ was used to assess relative tolerance to Development Impacts.
Discussion
During the assessment, a partially treed rocky parcel surrounded by new construction on two sides and Happy Valley Rd on the fourth side. The site is located within a Habitat and Biodiversity Development Permit Area (DPA). The trees appear to be second and third growth forest. Tree species on site primarily consists of Douglas fir, Arbutus, Shore pine, with several other tree species intermixed. The growth and structure of the trees of concern are indicative of those that have grown in a stand with poor taper, poor live crown ratios, and stem deflections, often due to phototrophic growth in early growing years.
One hundred and nine (109) trees were inventoried due to possible impacts, all of which are protected as they are located within a Habitat and Development DPA. Under the current proposal, ninety-five (95) trees, all of which are protected, are proposed for removal. A further seven (7) trees, all (7) of which are protected, are located on a proposed park dedication, however, CTS recommends that some or all these trees be removed or modified. Finally, seven (7) trees, all (7) of which are protected, are proposed for retention and protection as they are entirely or partially located lots not proposed for development.
Expected Tree Impacts
The trees within the footprint of the Vision Way extension, Strata road, Strata building lots, and Lots C-D are proposed for removal.
| Location | Number (DPA Protected) |
|---|---|
| Vision Way Extension | 25 |
| Strata Road | 8 |
| Strata Building Lots | 38 |
| Lot C | 7 |
| Lot D | 14 |
| Lot E | 3 |
| Park | 7 |
| Retain | 7 |
The trees located on the proposed park dedication (tagged 451-458 and 738) are all Douglas firs located on the eastern side of the lot. If the proposed development is approved and the houses built, the trees of concern would pose a high risk over the next two years. The trees were observed to be shallowly rooted on bedrock with limited available soil volume for anchoring. Laminated root rot, Phellinus weirii, is suspected to be present in many of these firs. The development activities that have occurred surround the site have likely changed the hydrology, a factor that will be further affected by the planned development on the site. Winds are often funneled through the Happy Valley. Once the site has been cleared for the planned development, the trees of concern will be almost fully exposed, except by southwesterly winds, thus increasing the likelihood of failure to probable. Due to the proximity of existing and proposed houses within one tree length on three sides the likelihood of impact is considered to be high. Therefore, with high value targets, the risk is considered to be high. These trees are expected to continue to decline. If the trees of concern are not removed (or the associated risks otherwise mitigated), it is possible that these trees could become an extreme risk the relatively near future (timeline based on rate of decline) with few options for safe removal. Safe removal or mitigation of these trees will be limited due a more confined space due to the proposed houses, limited accessibility due to the proposed houses and difficult terrain and decreased structural stability as the decline of the trees is expected to continue. If the proposed development is approved and this area becomes park land, wildlife trees would be a viable option rather than complete removal. If these trees were to be reduced and left standing as wildlife trees, they should be topped at a height such that there are no significant targets within one (1) tree length.
Replacement trees will be required for any tree removed or modified within the parkland. Replacement tree ratios are determined by tree size as specified in Section 14.2.6.3. of the City of Langford Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw (No. 1000). A total twenty-one (21) replacements trees will be required, please see Table 2 for a replacement tree breakdown.
Replacement Trees (Table 2)
Replacement tree table showing the number of removals within each size category, the required number of replacement trees for each category and the total number of replacement trees by category and overall.
| Size Category (DBH) | Number of Removals | Replacement Trees required for each removal | Total Trees |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15-30cm | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 30-45cm | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| 45-90cm | 4 | 4 | 16 |
| Total | 6 | - | 21 |
During the subdivision and building phases of the proposed development, care should be taken to mitigate the trees proposed for retention and any park trees that are retained. This should include tree protection fencing to protect as much of the protected root zone of each retained tree as possible, the use of low nitrogen and low velocity explosives (in conjunction with tree armoring) if blasting is required, and arborist supervision while working within the protected root zone of any protected tree.
Common and Latin Names
- Grand fir – Abies grandis
- Red alder – Alnus rubra
- Arbutus – Arbutus menziesii
- Shore pine – Pinus contorta var. contorta
- Cherry – Prunus subg. Prunus
- Douglas fir – Pseudotsuga menziesii
- Garry oak – Quercus garryana
- Pacific yew – Taxus brevifolia
Tree Condition Ratings Summary
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 a long 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 little pruning.
Species Relative Tolerance to Construction Impacts:
- Fir – Generally Moderate-good – “Tolerant of root loss.”
- Red alder – Poor-moderate – “Retain only in groups or as individuals with strong taper and structure. Relatively short lived. Intolerant to root injury.”
- Arbutus – Poor – “Intolerant of site disturbance.”
- Pine – Generally Moderate-Good
- Cherry – Moderate – “Intolerant of mechanical injury (poor compartmentalization).”
- Douglas Fir – Poor-good – “Tolerant of fill soil if limited to one-quarter of root zone. However, may decline slowly following addition of fill. Tolerant of root pruning. Intolerant of poor drainage.”
(Reference: Nelda P. Matheny and James R. Clark, Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees during Land Development, 1998.)
Tree Protection Plan
- Utilize Tree Protection Fencing (TPF) to restrict access to Tree Protection Zones. Provide signage on fencing which states: Tree Protection Area – No Admittance. Signage must be in a visible location attached to the fence. Signage must be attached to the outside of each Tree Protection Fencing area.
- Contact CTS to mark locations for the Tree Protection Fencing. All Tree Protection Fencing must be installed in the locations indicated by CTS. CTS must provide inspection and verification of the fencing detail for City approval.
- Each Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) must be vacated of all construction materials and/or equipment. At no time may the fencing be removed or modified unless the Project Arborist is contacted and approval given. In such cases the Project Arborist must assist fence removal and assess combined impacts which are required for construction completion. Capital Tree Service 250-217-8370 – Three business days notice required.
Landing/Storage Area
All construction materials will be stored outside of the protected root zone of any retained tree. These locations are indicated on the Site Plan.
Access
A single point of access shall be utilized. Contractors and workers shall be made aware of the Tree Protection Zones and Measures in place. Access will be from the front of the property from Smythe St. Tree Protection Zones and areas of the Site not under construction or within the Zone of Impact will be strictly off limits. It is the responsibility of the Client to schedule a pre-job meeting with the Project Arborist to discuss Tree Protection Plans, Zones, and requirements.
Five business days notice required. Project Arborist. 250-217-8370
Root Assessment and Observation
The Project Arborist must be on site for observation and assessment when working within the Protected Root Zone of any Protected Trees. This included any retained park tree and trees partially or entirely on a lot that is not proposed for development.
Tree Pruning
Tree pruning required for access and egress, tree health and safety shall be performed by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist without the use of climbing spurs. All tree pruning shall be performed in accordance with ANSI A-300 Standards for Tree Care Operations.
Blasting
The use of blasting for removal of rock may cause serious damage or death to nearby trees if not managed appropriately. CTS recommends the use of low nitrogen and low velocity explosives. Furthermore, we recommend the use of explosives to strategically fracture the rock before using an excavator to breakup (using a hoe ram) and remove the rock. It is critical that ¾” plywood is used to protect (armour) retained trees and that heavy matting is used to dampen shockwaves. A removal plan for the rock will be developed with the blasting contractor and the Project Arborist. It is recommended that this plan is created prior to the blasting contractor providing a cost estimate.
Tree Protection Plan Summary
i. Provide a detailed sign specifying that tree protection measures are in place and will be followed during the project. Fines will be posted for malicious acts and can be placed on individuals who disregard the tree protection plan and its guidelines. Signs will be placed at each entrance of the project detailing what is expected when working in potentially high impact tree protection zones.
ii. Provide tree protection fencing for all trees identified with protection requirement in this report. This fencing shall be four (4ft) feet in height and made of orange plastic. If required, header and footer boards will be used to secure the protective fencing.
iii. Tree protection and root protection signs will be placed on the fencing. No entry will be allowed, unless specified by the Project Arborist and in their presence while on site.
iv. Restrict vehicle traffic to designated access routes and travel lanes to avoid soil compaction and vegetation disturbances.
v. Make all necessary precautions to prevent the storage of material, equipment, stockpiling of aggregate or excavated soils within tree protection areas. No dumping of fuels, oils or washing of concrete fluids will be allowed in tree protection zones.
vi. Provide an onsite arborist when a risk of root damage, root cutting, or limb removal is required within the tree protection zone.
vii. Avoid alterations to existing hydrological patterns to minimize vegetation impacts to the site.
viii. The use of a Project Arborist is required to provide layout of tree protection zones. The Project Arborist(s) will provide pre-construction information to all parties involved with the project. The Project Arborist must be notified 72hrs prior to construction activities in sensitive areas. The Project Arborist should be used to provide root and branch pruning when diameters are greater than 6cm.
ix. At no time will tree protection zones be removed from the project unless approved by the Project Arborist.
Excavation Process Plan
- Provide and schedule Project Arborist to assess site prior to construction.
- Inventory and identify trees and hazards which could complicate excavation process.
- Utilize hand tools and cutting equipment when large tree roots are anticipated.
- When possible, utilize small, rubberized track excavation equipment which will reduce soil compaction.
- Excavator operator must be well informed about dig site and goal to complete project.
- Use shallow excavation sweeps across the site to establish a depth which roots can be easily identified. (3cm to 5cm in depth of soil for each sweep across the soil face)
- Roots greater than 6cm in diameter shall be preserved and inspected by the Project Arborist. The project arborist will determine if roots should be pruned or cut.
- All roots greater than 6cm in diameter should be identified and documented for project records.
- Photos are highly recommended for documentation purposes.
Assessment of the site may expose further tree issues or conditions. If this occurs the project arborist will contact City Staff for further recommendations.
Role of the Project Arborist
As well as creating the Tree Preservation Plan, the Project Arborist must be on site to supervise work within or immediately adjacent to the tree protection areas identified on the attached tree plan. This will include sidewalk, driveway and any improvements proposed for the municipal boulevard.
The Project Arborist will be present to supervise landscaping operations and activity within the tree protection areas.
At completion of the project, the Project Arborist will confirm that any tree protection or remediation related deficiencies have been addressed by the owner and building contractor. Once all deficiencies (if any) have been remedied, the Project Arborist shall prepare a letter to the City of Langford confirming completion of the project.
The following is a summary of key roles of the Project Arborist.
- Participation in a site meeting prior to the commencement of works adjacent to Tree Protection Zones to discuss the preservation plan and tree protection measures in place. It is the responsibility of the Client to schedule a pre-work site meeting. Five days Notice Required. CTS 250-217-8370
- The meeting will review the Tree Protection Plan, Tree Protection Zones and the specific measures required to protect the trees during the site preparation, construction and landscape phases of construction.
- The Project Arborist will inspect the Tree Protection Fencing and any other tree protection measures prior to a tree permit being issued by the City and prior to work commencing on site.
- The Project Arborist will be on site during the following work within or immediately adjacent to the Tree Protection Areas as indicated on the attached Site Plan:
- demolition
- grading
- excavation
- rock removal or blasting
- trenching for underground services and utilities
- preparation of grade for the proposed driveways and parking areas
- site inspections to insure adherence to Tree Protection Measures
Although this site has been assessed trees in the landscape are dynamic and changes could occur. This report is a static representation of the site during our assessment.
Keegan Durovich 07/28/2023
Capital Tree Service Inc.
ISA Certified Arborist TRAQ PN-9272A
B.A.Sc.
Conditions of Assessment Agreement
This Conditions of Assessment Agreement is made pursuant to and as a provision of CTS, providing tree assessment services as agreed to between the parties, the terms and substance of which are incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement (collectively the “Services”).
Trees are living organisms that are subject to stress and conditions and which inherently impose some degree or level of risk. Unless a tree is removed, the risk cannot be eliminated entirely. Tree conditions may also change over time even if there is no external evidence or manifestation. In that CTS provides the Services at a point in time utilizing applicable standard industry practices, any conclusions and recommendations provided are relevant only to the facts and conditions at the time the Services are performed. Given that CTS cannot predict or otherwise determine subsequent developments, CTS will not be liable for any such developments, acts, or conditions that occur including, but not limited to, decay, deterioration, or damage from any cause, insect infestation, acts of god or nature or otherwise. Unless otherwise stated in writing, assessments are performed visually from the ground on the above-ground portions of the tree(s). However, the outward appearance of trees may conceal defects. Therefore, to the extent permitted by law, CTS does not make and expressly disclaims any warranties or representations of any kind, express or implied, with respect to completeness or accuracy of the information contained in the reports or findings resulting from the Services beyond that expressly contracted for by CTS in writing, including, but not limited to, performing diagnosis or identifying hazards or conditions not within the scope of the Services or not readily discoverable using the methods applied pursuant to applicable standard industry practices. Further, CTS’ liability for any claim, damage or loss caused by or related to the Services shall be limited to the work expressly contracted for.
In performing the Services, CTS may have reviewed publicly available or other third- party records or conducted interviews and has assumed the genuineness of such documents and statements. CTS disclaims any liability for errors, omissions, or inaccuracies resulting from or contained in any information obtained from any third- party or publicly available source.
Except as agreed to between the parties prior to the Services being performed, the reports and recommendations resulting from the Services may not be used by any other party or for any other purpose. The undersigned also agrees, to the extent permitted by law, to protect, indemnify, defend and hold CTS harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, actions, rights and causes of action of every kind and nature, including actions for contribution or indemnity, that may hereafter at any time be asserted against CTS or another party, including, but not limited to, bodily injury or death or property damage arising in any manner from or in any way related to any disclaimers or limitations in this Agreement.
By accepting or using the Services, the customer will be deemed to have agreed to the terms of this Agreement, even if it is not signed.
Acknowledged by:
Name of Customer: John Sercombe of TEKloch Homes, 3405 Happy Valley Road, Langford, BC V9C 2X9
Authorized Signature: _______________________________________________
Date: 2023-07-28
Appendix ‘A’ — Tree Inventory
Table 1. Tree Inventory for 3405 Happy Valley Rd. Diameter at breast height (DBH) is measured in centimeters. Protected root zones (PRZ) are calculated using a 0.12 multiplier and represent the protected radius area around the tree in meters. Site notes included: Trees are rooted on bedrock. Limited soil. Phellinus weirii likely present in whole area. Changes to hydrology due to surrounding development. Site will be fully exposed when cleared. Previously sheltered area- all new exposure to the East and North. West to be exposed.
Conditions: 8°C, Overcast, 10km/h South light breeze. Date: March 7, 2023
| Tag # | Species | DBH (cm) | PRZ (m) | Health/Structure | Protected | Action | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 451 | Douglas Fir | 86 | 10 | F-P/F | Yes | Retain | Over extended branches. Epicormics. Uneven canopy. Deadwood. Shared ownership. |
| 452 | Douglas Fir | 90 | 11 | F/F | Yes | Retain | 10+cm hanger. Over extended branches. Rooted on bedrock. Shared ownership. |
| 453 | Douglas Fir | 52 | 6 | P/P | Yes | Park Habitat Tree | Previously topped. Stem deflections. Dieback. 10cm Deadwood. |
| 454 | Douglas Fir | 36 | 4 | Dead | Yes | Park Habitat Tree | Dead. |
| 455 | Douglas Fir | 61 | 7 | F-P/G-F | Yes | Park Habitat Tree | Epicormics. Dieback. Deadwood. Over extended branches. Uneven canopy. |
| 456 | Douglas Fir | 67 | 8 | F-P/F | Yes | Park Habitat Tree | Epicormics. Dieback. 10cm Deadwood. Over extended branches. Uneven canopy. Lean. |
| 457 | Douglas Fir | 19 | 2 | F-P/F | No | Park Habitat Tree | Dieback. Deadwood. Suppressed. Understory. Over extended branches. Possible fungal infection. |
| 458 | Douglas Fir | 24 | 3 | F-P/P | Yes | Park Habitat Tree | Dieback. Deadwood. Suppressed. Understory. Over extended branches. Possible fungal infection. Topped. |
| 459 | Douglas Fir | 29 | 3 | F/F-P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Over extended branches. Stem deflections. Uneven canopy. Resinosis. |
| 460 | Arbutus | 51 | 6 | P/F | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Dieback. 10cm Deadwood. Little foliar area. Development within CRZ. |
| 461 | Pacific yew | 24 | 3 | F-P/P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Basal damage. Dieback. Deadwood. Epicormics. Rooted on rock. Topped. |
| 462 | Red alder | 33 | 4 | P/F-P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Lean. Stem dieback. Epicormics. |
| 463 | Douglas Fir | 75 | 9 | F/F | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Dieback. 10cm Deadwood. Uneven canopy. Hangers. Over extended branches. |
| 464 | Douglas Fir | 67 | 8 | F-P/F | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Stem deflections. Epicormics. 10cm deadwood. Resinosis. Over extended branches. |
| 465 | Douglas Fir | 48 | 6 | F/P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Dieback. 5cm Deadwood. Epicormics. Over extended branches. Topped. |
| 466 | Douglas Fir | 27 | 3 | F-P/F-P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Suppressed. Understory. Galls on branches. Over extended branches. |
| 467 | Douglas Fir | 75 | 9 | F/F-P | Yes | Lot E Removal | Resinosis. Swollen basal stem. Epicormics. Over extended branches. Uneven canopy. |
| 468 | Douglas Fir | 60 | 7 | F/F | Yes | Lot E Removal | Stem deflections. Epicormics. Dieback. Deadwood. |
| 469 | Douglas Fir | 20 | 2 | F/P | Yes | Lot E Removal | Suppressed. Dieback. Deadwood. Stem deflections. Topped. Over extended branches. |
| 470 | Douglas Fir | 26 | 3 | F-P/P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Dieback. Deadwood. Uneven canopy. Epicormics. Rooted on rock. Basal cavity. |
| 471 | Douglas Fir | 69 | 8 | P/P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Stem dieback. Dead top. 10cm deadwood. |
| 472 | Douglas Fir | 59 | 7 | P/F | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Significant dieback. 10cm deadwood. Over extended branches. |
| 473 | Douglas Fir | 89 | 11 | F-P/F | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Significant dieback. 10cm deadwood. Over extended branches. Stem deflections. Epicormics. |
| 474 | Arbutus | 27 | 3 | F/P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Basal cavity. Dieback. |
| 475 | Arbutus | 22 | 3 | F-P/F | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Dieback. Little foliar area. Mutated root crown. Suspected internal decay. |
| 476 | Arbutus | 28 | 3 | F-P/F-P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Dieback. Little foliar area. Mutated root crown. Suspected internal decay. |
| 477 | Douglas Fir | 36 | 4 | P/F-P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | High cone production. Dieback. Deadwood. Uneven canopy. Epicormics. Slight lean. |
| 478 | Douglas Fir | 40 | 5 | F-P/F-P | Yes | Strata Road Removal | High cone production. Dieback. Deadwood. Uneven canopy. Epicormics. Slight lean. |
| 479 | Douglas Fir | 27 | 3 | F/F-P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Lean. Dieback. Deadwood. Rooted next to dead stump. |
| 480 | Arbutus | 31 | 4 | G-F/G | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Hanger. Mutated root crown. Epicormics. |
| 481 | Arbutus | 24 | 3 | P/P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Stem dieback. Serious decline. Cavities in basal stem. Uneven canopy. |
| 482 | Arbutus | 26 | 3 | P/P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Stem dieback. Serious decline. Cavities in basal stem. Uneven canopy. |
| 483 | Douglas Fir | 42 | 5 | F-P/P | Yes | Strata Road Removal | Dieback. 10cm Deadwood. Lean, previously partial root failure. High cone productions. |
| 484 | Douglas Fir | 62 | 7 | F-P/F | Yes | Strata Road Removal | Rope girdled. Stem deflections. Dieback. 10cm Deadwood. Resinosis. Reaction wood on south side of trunk. |
| 485 | Douglas Fir | 46 | 6 | F-P/P | Yes | Strata Road Removal | Over extended branches. Lean. Dieback. Deadwood. |
| 486 | Douglas Fir | 54 | 6 | F-P/P | Yes | Strata Road Removal | Uneven canopy. Dieback. Deadwood. Epicormics. Stem dieback. Rope girdled. |
| 487 | Douglas Fir | 50 | 6 | F-P/F-P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Uneven canopy. Dieback. Deadwood. Epicormics. Stem dieback. |
| 488 | Douglas Fir | 25 | 3 | F/F | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Lean swollen basal stem. Dieback. Deadwood. Epicormics. |
| 489 | Douglas Fir | 21 | 3 | F-P/F-P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Lean swollen basal stem. Dieback. Deadwood. Epicormics. |
| 490 | Douglas Fir | 38 | 5 | F/F | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Lean swollen basal stem. Dieback. Deadwood. |
| 491 | Douglas Fir | 33 | 4 | P/F-P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Lean swollen basal stem. Dieback. Deadwood. |
| 492 | Shore pine | 34 | 4 | F-P/P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Lean. Codominant top. Previously topped. Suppressed. Understory. Deadwood. |
| 493 | Douglas Fir | 37 | 4 | F-P/P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Lean. Codominant top. Previously topped. Suppressed. Understory. Deadwood. |
| 494 | Douglas Fir | 28 | 3 | P/P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Little live foliar area. Dieback. Deadwood. Topped. Lean. |
| 495 | Douglas Fir | 24 | 3 | F/P | Yes | Lot D Removal | Lean. Codominant top. Previously topped. Suppressed. Understory. Deadwood. |
| 496 | Douglas Fir | 44 | 5 | F-P/P | Yes | Lot D Removal | Grafted to 497 at grade. Stem deflections. Poor live crown ratio. Epicormics. Dieback. 5cm Deadwood. |
| 497 | Douglas Fir | 41 | 5 | F-P/P | Yes | Lot D Removal | Grafted to 496 at grade. Stem deflections. Poor live crown ratio. Epicormics. Dieback. 5cm Deadwood. |
| 498 | Douglas Fir | 57 | 7 | F-P/F-P | Yes | Retain | Dieback. 10cm Deadwood. Epicormics. Over extended branches. Lean. Shared ownership. |
| 499 | Douglas Fir | 76 | 9 | F-P/P | Yes | Lot D Removal | Lean. Stem deflections. Over extended branches. Dieback. Deadwood. |
| 500 | Douglas Fir | 33 | 4 | F/P | Yes | Lot D Removal | Topped. Poor live crown ratio. Suppressed. Understory. |
| 551 | Douglas Fir | 31 | 4 | F-P/P | Yes | Lot D Removal | Lean. Uneven canopy. Over extended branches. Dieback. 5cm Deadwood. Topped. |
| 552 | Douglas Fir | 33 | 4 | F-P/P | Yes | Lot D Removal | Stem deflections. Poor live crown ratio. Dieback. Deadwood. Uneven canopy. |
| 553 | Douglas Fir | 54 | 6 | F-P/P | Yes | Lot D Removal | Stem deflections. Poor live crown ratio. Dieback. Deadwood. |
| 554 | Douglas Fir | 74 | 9 | F-P/P | Yes | Lot D Removal | Sweeping stem at grade. Epicormics. Dieback. 10cm Deadwood. Poor live crown ratio. |
| 555 | Shore pine | 29 | 3 | F/F-P | Yes | Retain | Uneven canopy. Topped. Sap deposit on wound 1.5m above grade. Private Tree. |
| 556 | Douglas Fir | 51 | 6 | F-P/P | Yes | Lot D Removal | Codominant stems 1.8m above grade. Resinosis. Poor aspect ratio. Narrow angle of attachment and included bark in union. Dieback. Deadwood. Seam in below union. |
| 557 | Douglas Fir | 29 | 3 | F/P | Yes | Lot D Removal | Lean. Stem deflections. Resinosis. High cone production. |
| 558 | Douglas Fir | 23 | 3 | F/F | Yes | Lot D Removal | Lean. Possible fungal infection. Swollen basal stem. Dense foliage. Understory. |
| 559 | Douglas Fir | 53 | 6 | F-P/F-P | Yes | Lot D Removal | Poor live crown ratio. Stem deflections. Over extended branches. Ivy. Above grade structural roots. |
| 560 | Douglas Fir | 26 | 3 | F-P/F-P | Yes | Lot D Removal | Suppressed. Resinosis. Basal damage. Stem deflections. Dieback. Deadwood. |
| 561 | Douglas Fir | 67 | 8 | F-P/P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Stem deflections. Dieback. 10cm Deadwood. Poor live crown ratio. Basal cavity. |
| 562 | Douglas Fir | 68 | 8 | F-P/P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Sweeping stem at grade. Dieback. 10cm Deadwood. Over extended branches. |
| 563 | Arbutus | 50 | 6 | F/F-P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Uneven canopy. Minor dieback. Phototrophic growth. |
| 564 | Douglas Fir | 58 | 7 | P/P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Lean. Dieback and deadwood. Sparse canopy. Stem deflections. |
| 565 | Douglas Fir | 33 | 4 | F-P/P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Severe lean. Dieback. Deadwood. Topped. |
| 566 | Douglas Fir | 48 | 6 | Dead | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Dead. |
| 567 | Douglas Fir | 45 | 5 | F-P/P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Sweeping stem at grade. Dieback. Deadwood. Resinosis. |
| 568 | Douglas Fir | 45 | 5 | F-P/F-P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Poor live crown ratio. Over extended branches. Sparse canopy. |
| 569 | Shore pine | 57 | 7 | F-P/P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Sparse canopy. Stem deflections. Dieback. Deadwood. |
| 570 | Douglas Fir | 60 | 7 | F-P/F | Yes | Strata Road Removal | Dieback. Deadwood. Over extended branches. Epicormics. Slight lean. |
| 571 | Douglas Fir | 39 | 5 | F/F | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Minor deadwood. High cone production. Dense foliage. Poor taper. |
| 572 | Douglas Fir | 28 | 3 | F-P/F | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Suppressed. Understory. Dieback. Wound 5m above grade. |
| 573 | Douglas Fir | 40 | 5 | P/F-P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Dieback. Deadwood. High cone production. Sparse canopy. Sweeping stem. |
| 574 | Douglas Fir | 27 | 3 | P/P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Dieback. Deadwood. Codominant top. Previously topped. |
| 575 | Douglas Fir | 42 | 5 | F-P/P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Stem deflections. Dieback. Deadwood. |
| 576 | Douglas Fir | 41 | 5 | F/F-P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Gravel up to root crown. Development in CRZ. Dieback. Epicormics. Lean. |
| 577 | Douglas Fir | 64 | 8 | F/F-P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Resinosis. Roots likely cut during development in CRZ. Large hanger. Epicormics. Over extended limbs. Deadwood. |
| 578 | Douglas Fir | 100 | 12 | F/P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Dieback. Deadwood. Over extended branches. Large roots cut during development in CRZ. |
| 579 | Shore pine | 25 | 3 | F-P/P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Poor live crown ratio. Understory tree. Little foliar area. Torsion crack. |
| 580 | Douglas Fir | 25 | 3 | P/F-P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Sweeping stem at grade. Over extended branches. Epicormics. Understory tree. Mechanical damage to basal stem. |
| 581 | Douglas Fir | 25 | 3 | F-P/P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Sweeping stem at grade. Over extended branches. Epicormics. Understory tree. |
| 582 | Grand fir | 51 | 6 | F-P/F-P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Dieback. Low vigour. Sweeping stem. Uneven canopy. |
| 583 | Douglas Fir | 63 | 8 | F-P/F-P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Stem deflections. Overextended branches. Dieback. Deadwood. Resinosis. |
| 584 | Douglas Fir | 54 | 6 | F-P/F-P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Stem deflections. Overextended branches. Dieback. Deadwood. |
| 585 | Douglas Fir | 60 | 7 | F-P/P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Overextended limbs. Dieback. 10cm Deadwood. Topped. |
| 586 | Douglas Fir | 56 | 7 | P/F-P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Dieback. Dieback. 10cm Deadwood. Little foliar area. Poor live crown ratio. |
| 587 | Douglas Fir | 58 | 7 | F-P/F-P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Poor live crown ratio. Over extended branches. Dieback. |
| 588 | Douglas Fir | 26 | 3 | F/P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Understory tree. Uneven canopy. Stem deflections. Topped. |
| 589 | Douglas Fir | 35 | 4 | F/P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Sweeping stem at grade. Previous partial uproot. Dieback. Deadwood. |
| 590 | Arbutus | 67 | 8 | F/F-P | Yes | Vision Way Removal | Sweeping stem at grade. Deadwood. |
| 591 | Douglas Fir | 62 | 7 | F/F-P | Yes | Retain | Over extended branches. Deadwood. Uneven canopy. Private Tree. |
| 592 | Douglas Fir | 50 | 6 | F/F | Yes | Retain | Uneven canopy. Dieback. Deadwood. Private Tree. |
| 593 | Douglas Fir | 36 | 4 | F-P/P | Yes | Retain | Lean. Dieback. Deadwood. Suppressed. Private Tree. |
| 594 | Cherry | 22 | 3 | F-P/P | Yes | Lot C Removal | Lean. Basal decay with ramshorns. Dieback. Deadwood. |
| 595 | Cherry | 22 | 3 | F-P/P | Yes | Lot C Removal | Basal decay with ramshorns. Dieback. Deadwood. Stem deflections. |
| 596 | Douglas Fir | 33 | 4 | F-P/P | Yes | Lot C Removal | Sweeping stem. Dieback. Deadwood. Resinosis. Epicormics. |
| 597 | Douglas Fir | 25 | 3 | F-P/F-P | Yes | Lot C Removal | Lean. Dieback. Deadwood. Epicormics. |
| 598 | Douglas Fir | 76 | 9 | F-P/F-P | Yes | Lot C Removal | Epicormics. Resinosis. Over extended branches. Deadwood. |
| 599 | Douglas Fir | 53 | 6 | F/P | Yes | Lot C Removal | Sweeping stem. Rooted adjacent to cut and compartmentalized stump. Uneven canopy. |
| 600 | Douglas Fir | 54 | 6 | F/F-P | Yes | Lot C Removal | Poor live crown ratio. Epicormics. Over extended branches. Ramshorns on basal stem. |
| 735 | Garry Oak | 14 | 2 | P/P | No | Strata Lot Removal | Understory tree. Pest damage to stem. |
| 736 | Douglas Fir | 69 | 8 | P/P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Severe dieback. Extensive dead wood. Sloughing bark. Unsuitable to retain. |
| 737 | Douglas Fir | 57 | 7 | P/P | Yes | Strata Road Removal | Resinosis. Poor taper. Branch dieback. In decline. Unsuitable to retain. |
| 738 | Douglas Fir | 53 | 6 | P/P | Yes | Park Habitat Tree | Branch dieback. In decline. Phellinus werii present. Unsuitable to retain. |
| 739 | Douglas Fir | 97 | 12 | P/P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Pest infestation. Sloughing bark. Stem deflection. Dead wood. In decline. Unsuitable to retain. Exposed roots-possible shift. |
| 740 | Douglas Fir | 49 | 6 | P/P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Stem damage. Stressed. Sub-average elongation of new growth. Unsuitable to retain. |
| 741 | Douglas Fir | 86 | 10 | P/P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Unbalanced canopy. Significant branch dieback. In decline. Unsuitable to retain. |
| 742 | Douglas Fir | 56 | 7 | P/P | Yes | Strata Lot Removal | Poor stem taper. Significant branch dieback. In decline. Epicormic. Unsuitable to retain. |
| 743 | Douglas Fir | 72 | 9 | P/P | Yes | Strata Road Removal | In decline. Branch dieback. Epicormic. Unsuitable to retain. |
Appendix ‘B’ — Photos and Site Plan
Figure 1. Site Plan.



Figure 2. View of Southeastern edge of site.

Figure 3. Park Tree Canopies. Deadwood and dieback visible in most of the canopies.

Figure 4. Southern section of site. Note rocky outcrops and existing houses.

