Metrolinx
i
Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Tree Inventory Plan
February 2016
Distribution List
No. of
Hard
Copies
0
Caledonia GO Station Transit Project
Assessment Process Tree Inventory
Plan
Metrolinx
PDF
Email
Yes
Yes
Organization Name
Metrolinx
Record of Revisions
Revision
0
1
2
3
4
Date
January 13, 2015
July 27, 2015
September 4, 2015
February 16, 2016
February 22, 2016
Description
Draft Submission to Metrolinx
Second Draft Submission to Metrolinx
Final Draft Submission with Draft EPR to Metrolinx
Final Submission to Metrolinx for Review
Final EPR
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
Report Prepared By:
Kevin Butt, B.Sc. (Env). Eco. Rest. Cert.
Certified Arborist & Terrestrial Ecologist
KB:mp
Report Reviewed By:
Jennifer Vandermeer, P.Eng.
Environmental Engineer
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
6990 Creditview Road, Unit 2
Mississauga ON L5N 8R9 CANADA
February 2016
300034767.0000
Nicholle Smith, B.A., EMPD
Senior Terrestrial Ecologist
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
034767_GO Caledonia Tree Inventory Report.docx
300034767.0000
Metrolinx
ii
Table of Contents
5.0
6.0
7.0
1
Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Tree Inventory Plan
February 2016
Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Tree Inventory Plan
February 2016
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Metrolinx
1.0
Introduction .........................................................................................................1
Study Area ...........................................................................................................1
Methodology ........................................................................................................ 1
Findings ...............................................................................................................3
4.1 Trees Found Within the Rail Corridor...........................................................3
4.2 Trees Located on Lands Adjacent to the Rail Corridor ................................6
4.2.1 2-4 Croham Road (Tree Nos. 3 and 4), East of Rail Corridor .......... 6
4.2.2 Retail Plaza (Tree Nos. 5 to 11), West of Rail Corridor.................... 7
4.2.3 6 Croham Road (Tree No. 13), East of Rail Corridor ....................... 8
4.2.4 Traffic Island (Tree Nos. 14 to 17), East of Rail Corridor ................. 8
4.2.5 York Beltline Trail (Tree Nos. 18 to 24), East of Rail Corridor.......... 9
4.2.6 Eglinton-Gilbert Parkette, East of Rail Corridor.............................. 10
4.2.7 Ravine and Natural Feature Protection By-Law Protected Lands,
West of Rail Corridor ...................................................................... 11
4.3 Categorization of Trees by City of Toronto Private Tree By-law Categories
...................................................................................................................12
4.4 Trees Removed from Eglinton Crosstown LRT Project Area.....................12
Tree Preservation and Protection .................................................................... 12
Tree Replacement and Compensation ............................................................ 13
Conclusion .........................................................................................................13
Metrolinx, an agency of the Province of Ontario, has retained R.J. Burnside & Associates
Limited (Burnside) to complete an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Preliminary
Design Update to support the development of the future Caledonia GO Station. This
new station will be located near the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West and Caledonia
Road, where the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit (LRT) line intersects with the GO
Transit Barrie Rail Corridor (northwest quadrant of Eglinton Avenue West and Croham
Road). The preparation of a tree inventory plan is included as a component of the EA, to
determine impacts to trees onsite and on adjacent lands, as prescribed by the Transit
Project Assessment Process (TPAP), as outlined in Ontario Regulation 231/08, Transit
Projects and Metrolinx undertakings (Government of Ontario).
The intent of the report is to recognize tree impacts that may result from the construction
of the proposed station; however, Metrolinx properties are not subject to the City of
Toronto’s Private Tree By-law or the Ravine and Natural Feature Protection By-law.
The Caledonia Station Arborist Report – Eglinton Scarborough Crosstown LRT
completed by Beacon Environmental (dated November 2012) was reviewed during the
preparation of this report to address trees that are located on lands that overlap with the
study areas of both the Caledonia GO and LRT station.
2.0
Figures
Figure 1: Tree Inventory Plan
Introduction
Study Area
The site of the future Caledonia GO Station is located in the City of Toronto, in an area
comprised of mixed commercial, residential and industrial land uses. The Study Area for
the tree inventory extends approximately 60 m south and 300 m north of Eglinton
Avenue West. The boundaries of the Study Area, as illustrated on Figure 1 (provided
before appendices), include lands adjacent to the development area (Project Area)
including the Eglinton-Gilbert Parkette.
Appendices
Appendix A Tree Study Methodology
Appendix B Tree Assessment Data sheet
Appendix C Limitation of Tree Studies
3.0
Methodology
The tree inventory and assessment was completed by Kevin Butt, ISA Certified Arborist
on October 1, 2014 and March 12, 2015 according to the City of Toronto’s Private Tree
By-Law (Article III of Chapter 813 of the Toronto Municipal Code) and the Guidelines for
Completion of an Arborist Report (City of Toronto, January 2011). Trees were mapped
using the Existing Property Plan (ECLE1-2C-SKG0011) and the Property Requirements
Plan (ECLE1-2C-SKG0012) within the Reference Concept Design (RCD) prepared by
ARUP and NORR Limited Architects (September 2013) overlaid on an air photo and
property surveys to determine lands and the ownership of trees and which trees that will
be impacted as a result of the design. Other elements of the RCD were reviewed in
conjunction with the tree inventory.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
034767_GO Caledonia Tree Inventory Report.docx
300034767.0000
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
034767_GO Caledonia Tree Inventory Report.docx
300034767.0000
Metrolinx
2
Metrolinx
3
Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Tree Inventory Plan
February 2016
Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Tree Inventory Plan
February 2016
Lands accessed and reviewed within the Study Area comprised of the following
properties:
Category 3
x
x
x
x
Commercial lands immediately west (retail plaza) and east (2-4 Croham Road) of the
rail corridor;
Rear yards of residential lands abutting the rail corridor for trees that may be
impacted, but the properties were not accessed (i.e. reviewed from the rail corridor);
South trailhead of the York Beltline Trail; and
Eglinton-Gilbert Parkette.
Most trees within the Study Area were individually measured and assessed. Trees
Diametres at Breast Heights (DBH) were measured using a DBH tape at 1.4 m above
the ground, assigned a condition rating of “Good”, “Fair”, “Poor” or “Dead” based on
biological health and structure observations (in some cases with additional qualifying
information, e.g., ornamental planting) and photographs were taken where access
permitted. Trees with multiple stems were still measured at 1.4 m above the ground, like
the single stemmed trees.
Trees that are not subject to the City’s tree by-laws (i.e., private trees less than 30 cm
DBH) were included in the study (i.e., tree nos. 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 and tree group nos. 26
and 27) where their removal to accommodate development is anticipated. They were
included to get a more complete understanding of tree removals that may occur and
affect neighbouring properties (e.g., diminished aesthetics).
In cases where there are assemblages of immature trees not subject to the City’s tree
by-laws, the assessment was carried out by grouping and assigning ranges to the trees’
characteristics. This grouping was done to ensure these trees were included in the
inventory while reasonably scoping the inventory to prevent hundreds of immature trees
from being individually assessed.
Some of the trees investigated were tagged by others for a separate study. These tag
number were recorded and are provided in the data sheets of this study.
Following assessment of the trees, the trees were assigned categories as per the
Guidelines for completion of an Arborist Report. Keeping with the intent of the City’s tree
protection by-laws, all trees with the following attributes were assessed and detailed on
data sheets provided in Appendix B.
Category 4
Category 5
Trees of all diameters situated on City owned parkland within 6 metres of
the subject site. (Parks By-Law, Article VII of Chapter 608 of the Toronto
Municipal Code)
On lands designated under City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 658,
Ravine and Natural Feature Protection, trees of all diameters situated
within 10 metres of any construction activity.
Trees of all diameters situated within the City road allowance adjacent to
the subject site.(City Street Tree By-Law, Article II of Chapter 813 of the
Toronto Municipal Code)
Preliminary recommendations of tree preservation and removal are assigned based on
the RCD (September 2013) and anticipated impacts that will occur within the rail corridor
and adjacent lands to accommodate construction.
4.0
Findings
The tree inventory and assessment findings have been detailed on Figure 1 and in
Appendix B.
4.1
Trees Found Within the Rail Corridor
Immature Trees within Rail Corridor Slopes (Tree Group Nos. 26 and 27 that are
Not Subject to the Private Tree Protection By-Law)
All onsite trees are located on slopes adjacent to the east and west property limits of the
rail corridor, abutting residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The majority of
these trees are immature and multiple-stemmed with trunks 5 to 15 cm Diameter at
Breast Height (DBH) within continuous hedgerows and have been delineated as Tree
Group nos. 26 and 27 (no By-Law category), which span west and east of the rail
corridor, respectively. Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo) is the dominant species within
the hedgerows with lesser associates of White Mulberry (Morus alba), Black Walnut
(Juglans cinerea), Apple (Malus pumila), Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila) and Norway
Maple (Acer platanoides). Photograph 1 illustrates these conditions.
Table 1: City of Toronto Tree By-Law Categories
Category 1
Category 2
Trees with diameters of 30 cm or more, situated on private property on
the subject site.(Private Tree By-Law, Article III of Chapter 813 of the
Toronto Municipal Code)
Trees with diameters of 30 cm or more, situated on private property, up
to within 6 metres of the subject site. (Private Tree By-Law, Article III of
Chapter 813 of the Toronto Municipal Code)
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
034767_GO Caledonia Tree Inventory Report.docx
300034767.0000
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
034767_GO Caledonia Tree Inventory Report.docx
300034767.0000
Metrolinx
4
Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Tree Inventory Plan
February 2016
Metrolinx
5
Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Tree Inventory Plan
February 2016
self-seeded apple tree with crooked trunks, epicormic sprouts and trunk fork that is low
to the ground.
Photograph 1: Northview of Hedgerows and Group No. 26 and 27, west and east
of rail corridor, respectively
Trees within Rail Corridor (Tree Nos. 1, 2, 12 and 25) that are Subject to the Private
Tree Protection By-Law
Tree Nos. 1, 2, 12 and 25 have DBH’s greater than 30 cm and are located on west side
of the railway corridor adjacent to commercial properties. Tree Nos. 1 and 2
(Category 1) are Manitoba Maples with poor condition due to severe leans and crooked
trunks, resulting in an overall poor growth form. The trees are leaning toward the slope
and are not anticipated to strike the track in the event of tree failure.
Photograph 4: Tree No. 12
Removal of Trees Nos. 1, 2 and 12 may be required to accommodate the construction of
the new station and improvements to the tracks.
Tree No. 25 is a multi-stemmed Manitoba Maple that appears to be shared
(Categories 1 and 2) between railway lands and 115 Carnarvan Street (as per the
Reference Concept Design). A rating of good condition is assigned to this tree. Impacts
to this tree by the proposed work are not known at this stage.
Photograph 2: Tree No. 1
Photograph 3: Tree No. 2
Tree No. 12 (Category 1) is an Apple tree in fair condition with multi-stemmed structure
with DBH’s of approximately 20, 25 and 35 cm. It displays characteristics of a
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
034767_GO Caledonia Tree Inventory Report.docx
300034767.0000
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
034767_GO Caledonia Tree Inventory Report.docx
300034767.0000
Metrolinx
6
Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Tree Inventory Plan
February 2016
Metrolinx
7
Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Tree Inventory Plan
February 2016
Photograph 6: Trees East of 2 4 Croham Road
4.2.2
Tree Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are located at the north limit of the grassed portion of land
on the retail plaza property located west of the railway corridor. This grouping of trees
consists of White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Black
Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) and Manitoba Maple. Their condition ranges from good
to fair.
Photograph 5: Tree No. 25
4.2
Trees Located on Lands Adjacent to the Rail Corridor
4.2.1
2-4 Croham Road (Tree Nos. 3 and 4), East of Rail Corridor
Retail Plaza (Tree Nos. 5 to 11), West of Rail Corridor
The property at 2-4 Croham Road was reviewed from the sidewalk and rail corridor.
Two Manitoba Maple trees (Tree No. 3 and 4) were found growing immediately in front
(east) of the building, one is 10 cm DBH and the other is multiple-stemmed with stems
ranging in diameter from 5 to 10 cm, respectively (no By-law category).
Photograph 7: Tree Nos. 5 to 11
Tree no. 11 appears to be shared with the adjacent residential lands at 101 Canarvan
Street. This tree is a mature Manitoba Maple with a DBH of 68 cm.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
034767_GO Caledonia Tree Inventory Report.docx
300034767.0000
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
034767_GO Caledonia Tree Inventory Report.docx
300034767.0000
Metrolinx
8
Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Tree Inventory Plan
February 2016
Metrolinx
9
Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Tree Inventory Plan
February 2016
Photograph 9: Southwest View of Tree Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17
4.2.5
Photograph 8: Tree No. 11
Tree Nos. 5 to 11 are required for removal to accommodate the west access of the
pedestrian tunnel. Tree Nos. 6, 10 and 11 are Category 2 trees, the remaining trees do
fall under any of the 5 categories.
4.2.3
York Beltline Trail (Tree Nos. 18 to 24), East of Rail Corridor
Tree Nos. 18, 19 and 20 are Serviceberries (Amelanchier sp.) that are found at the
southern trailhead of the York Beltline Trail, on City-owned parklands, at the west
terminus of Bowie Avenue (Category 3). These trees are immature and all have a DBH
of 8 cm. All trees have basal trunk damage that is consistent with string trimmer
damage that occurs during turf maintenance. This damage is severe on Tree Nos. 19
and 20. This damage is relatively less severe on Tree No. 18 but the tree has two
moderately severe trunk wounds. All of these trees will require removal to
accommodate the construction of the east access to the pedestrian tunnel.
6 Croham Road (Tree No. 13), East of Rail Corridor
Tree No. 13 is a Manitoba Maple is located on the rear yard of 6 Croham Road with a
DBH that appears to be close to 30 cm (Category 2). It is immediately adjacent to the
building on the 2-4 Croham Road site, and removal of the building may result in impacts
to this tree. No photograph is provided of this tree due to the obstructed view.
4.2.4
Traffic Island (Tree Nos. 14 to 17), East of Rail Corridor
Tree Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17 are four Thornless Honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos var.
inermis) trees (DBHs 17, 19, 26 and 16, respectively) found in a traffic island within the
City-owned right-of-way at the northeast corner of the Croham Road – Eglinton Avenue
West intersection. All trees have been assigned ratings of good condition. These trees
are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed development since construction does
not require alteration of the existing roads that could impact the traffic island through
encroachment.
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
034767_GO Caledonia Tree Inventory Report.docx
300034767.0000
Photograph 10: Southward View of Tree Nos. 18, 19 and 20
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
034767_GO Caledonia Tree Inventory Report.docx
300034767.0000
Metrolinx
10
Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Tree Inventory Plan
February 2016
Metrolinx
11
Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Tree Inventory Plan
February 2016
Tree and Tree Group Nos. 21, 22, 23 and 24 are located at the north side of the same
trailhead, on the west side of the trail (Category 3). Tree No. 21 is another Serviceberry
with a DBH of 8 cm and a good condition rating with no significant basal damage. Tree
Nos. 22 and 23 are ornamental Norway Maples (Acer platanoides) with DBH’s of 19 and
20 cm, respectively, and both are assigned good ratings of condition. Tree group No. 24
is a naturalized grouping of 12 stems of Manitoba Maples, immediately adjacent to the
railway fence, that have self-seeded from the tree thicket found on the railway property.
All of these trees are adequately setback from the proposed west access to the
pedestrian tunnel and no impacts are anticipated. Trees found north of this area are
mainly within rows of Manitoba Maple on both sides of the trail, with a few ornamental
plantings that are immediately adjacent the asphalt path.
Photograph 12: Westward View of Eglinton-Gilbert Parkette
4.2.7
Photograph 11: Trees Found North of the Trailhead at Bowie Avenue, Adjacent to
Asphalt Path
4.2.6
Ravine and Natural Feature Protection By-Law Protected Lands, West of
Rail Corridor
An area subject to the City’s Ravine and Natural Feature Protection (RNFP) By-Law is
located to the west of the Project Area beginning at the intersection of Strathnairn
Avenue and Carnarvan Street and extending northwest along Woodborough Avenue
(see Figure 1). This feature continues westward to meet up with the regulated area
associated with Black Creek. These RNFP designated lands are also designated as
regulated area by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), also shown
on Figure 1. No impacts to these lands will occur as a result of the proposed work.
Eglinton-Gilbert Parkette, East of Rail Corridor
Impacts to trees within the City-owned Eglinton-Gilbert Parkette located at the southwest
corner of Eglinton Avenue West and Gilbert Avenue are not anticipated to accommodate
the proposed GO train service improvements. The park is dominated by ornamental
plantings of Green Ash and Thornless Honeylocust that are located on the tableland
portion of the park.
Photograph 13: Westward View of Woodborough Avenue, RNFP By-Law
Protected Lands
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
034767_GO Caledonia Tree Inventory Report.docx
300034767.0000
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
034767_GO Caledonia Tree Inventory Report.docx
300034767.0000
Metrolinx
12
Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Tree Inventory Plan
February 2016
4.3
Table 2: Categorization of Trees by City of Toronto Private Tree By-law
Categories
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
Trees with diameters of 30 cm or more, situated on private
property on the subject site.
Trees with diameters of 30 cm or more, situated on private
property, up to within 6 metres of the subject site.
Trees of all diameters situated on City owned parkland within
6 metres of the subject site.
On lands designated under City of Toronto Municipal Code,
Chapter 658, Ravine and Natural Feature Protection, trees of
all diameters situated within 10 metres of any construction
activity.
Trees of all diameters situated within the City road allowance
adjacent to the subject site
4*
6.0
4*
Tree replacement will occur where the trees’ function is being lost for screening or
landscape aesthetics where reasonable and space permits. Compensation plantings will
be detailed in the landscape plan so that it can be coordinated with the other design
components.
7**
0
4
*- Tree No. 11 is a shared tree that falls into category 1 and 2.
** - Tree Group No. 24 is represented by 12 trees
4.4
Trees Removed from Eglinton Crosstown LRT Project Area
The Study Area of this investigation overlaps with the lands reviewed in the Beacon
Environmental study (dated November 2012). Trees adjacent to railway corridor on the
north side of Eglinton Avenue West have been removed to accommodate construction of
the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. These removals are trees within Group B (east of the rail
corridor) and individual trees south of the retail plaza (west of the rail corridor).
5.0
offsite tree nos. 3,-11, 13, 18, 19 and 20.
Tree protection accomplished through the use of fencing (e.g., paige wire or wood
hoarding) should be illustrated on a tree preservation plan to be prepared at the 50%
design stage. Details and notes regarding fence monitoring, construction standard and
by-law requirements are elements to be incorporated into this plan.
Table 2 provides totals of trees found in each category.
Category 2
13
Caledonia GO Station Environmental Assessment Tree Inventory Plan
February 2016
Categorization of Trees by City of Toronto Private Tree By-law
Categories
Category 1
Metrolinx
Tree Preservation and Protection
Tree Replacement and Compensation
Reasonable onsite planting locations for trees removed within the rail corridor may be
immediately adjacent 107 Carnarvan Street where the rail property becomes wider
relative to lands to the south on this site.
Plantings incorporated into the landscaping of the new Caledonia GO Station and
platform may enhance the lost function of removed trees, including shading and habitat
for beneficial wildlife. Plantings must be selected and located so they will not be
problematic to operations and potential future expansion of service.
City-owned parkland and road rights-of-way are recommended to receive compensation
plantings, if acceptable to City staff. It is recommended that enhancements to parklands
adjacent to the subject site such as Woodborough Avenue Park and the adjacent
expanded right-of-way are the priority for compensation plantings. It is also
recommended that plantings occur within the Eglinton Gilbert Parkette which was
impacted by removals of many Ash trees in Fall 2014. The York Beltline Trail would
benefit from installation of specimen plantings to offset lost habitat and compensate lost
canopy cover within the Project Area. Compensation within offsite lands, ravine areas
and TRCA lands will be discussed with TRCA and City staff at the detailed design phase
of the Project.
Tree preservation and removal will be determined at the 50% completion detailed design
stage when limits of grading are being determined. Opportunities for grading
adjustments to promote tree retention, where reasonable, may occur through
collaboration between the project arborist and the grading plan designer.
Compensation plantings are recommended to be native or non-invasive ornamental
species with tolerance to urban conditions. Species that require no maintenance once
established should be the priority for plant selection.
The preservation and removal of trees reviewed in this study are illustrated on Figure 1.
It is anticipated that the following trees:
7.0
x
x
Will be preserved
shared tree no. 25; and
offsite tree and tree group nos. 14 to17 and 21 to 24.
Will require removal:
onsite tree nos. 1, 2, and 12;
onsite tree groups 26 and 27; and
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
034767_GO Caledonia Tree Inventory Report.docx
Conclusion
Tree preservation and removal has been anticipated to provide a preliminary
determination of tree removal required to accommodate the construction of the new
elements associated with the Caledonia GO Station project. No removals are required
at this stage; however, the grading plan should be reviewed at the detailed design stage
(i.e., 50% design completion) to ensure impacts to all onsite and offsite trees subject to,
or exempt from the City’s tree by-laws are adequately addressed, as needed.
300034767.0000
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited
034767_GO Caledonia Tree Inventory Report.docx
300034767.0000
Figure
Figure
Appendix A. 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. The number corresponds with the tree tag affixed to the tree, if tree tagging is part of
the study’s scope.
Tree Study Methodology
Appendix A
Appendix A
Species: Botanical name of the species and commonly used English name.
DBH (cm): Diameter at Breast Height measured using DBH tape or tree caliper.
TPZ (m): Tree protection zone required based on the required setback from the trunk, as
designated by the agency (e.g., municipality). The TPZ is calculated by doubling the setback
and including the trunk diameter to create a diameter of circle of protection around the tree.
Condition (G, F, P, D): A qualitative score of the combination of biological health and structural
condition assigned as Good, Fair, Poor or Dead.
Potential Conflict with RCD: Potential Conflict with the Reference Concept Design (RCD) is
anticipated that to require the removal of trees and/ or tree groups. Final determination of
preservation and removal of the trees and / or tree groups to occur at 50% design stage.
Additional Notes: This section is intended to list additional information about the trees, as
needed. Additional details on tree health or structure, as components of Condition, and the
severity of the factor (e.g., severe crown dieback) may be included in this section that assisted
the arborist with the qualification of the tree as Good, Fair or Poor.
Acernegundo
ManitobaMaple
12
Malussp.
Apple
Acernegundo
13
ManitobaMaple
11
Species
Acernegundo
1
ManitobaMaple
Acernegundo
2
ManitobaMaple
Acernegundo
3
ManitobaMaple
Acernegundo
4
ManitobaMaple
Thujaoccidentalis
5
EasternWhiteCedar
Fraxinuspennsylvanica
6
GreenAsh
Fraxinuspennsylvanica
7
GreenAsh
Fraxinuspennsylvanica
8
GreenAsh
Robiniapseudoacacia
9
BlackLocust
Acernegundo
10
ManitobaMaple
Tree
#
3.7
3.8
5.1
3.9
3.9
3.8
9.0
5Ͳ12
16
34
27
27
24
62
30
5.1
35,20,25 6.5
9.1
3.7
10
68
5.3
P
F
F
F
F
G(F)
G(F)
G(F)
F
P
P
P
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Onesidedgrowth(severe,northward),
againstbuilding
Lowfork
Tag#0298,crookedtrunk(moderate),
lean(moderate,southward)
Tag#0299,brokenbranchesandstubs
(moderate),crowndieback(low)
Sharedtree,growingintofence,crooked
trunk(moderate),deadwood(moderate),
unbalancedcrown(severe,southward)
Girdlingroots(low)
Ashflowergall(low)
Multiplestemmed,growingoutof
sidewalk
Multiplestemmed,growingoutof
sidewalk
Poorgrowthform(moderate),poor
leaderdevelopment(severe)
Tag#0295
Leaningonslope(severe)
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CityofTorontoCategories
12345
1
DateofAssessment:Oct.1,2014&Mar.12,2015
Assessor:KevinButt
Potential
TPZ Condition Conflict
(m) (G,F,P,D) withRCD* AdditionalNotes
Leaningonslope(severe)
5.1
P
Yes
35,35
33
DBH
(cm)
Appendix B
AppendixBTreeAssessmentDataSheet
Tree Assessment Data sheet
Project#:300035344
ProjectName:GOCaledoniaStationEA
Appendix B
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.8
8
8
8
8
19
20
8Ͳ14
30,35,25 7.7
5Ͳ15
27 Multiplespecies(hedgerow)
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
n/a
F
Yes
2
DateofAssessment:Oct.1,2014&Mar.12,2015
Assessor:KevinButt
12stemsinagrouping,growingwithin
1moffenceonCityproperty
Lessthan1mfromfence
Ornamentalplanting
Ornamentalplanting
Basaltrunkwound(severe)
Basaltrunkwound(low),2trunkwounds
(moderate)
Basaltrunkwound(severe)
Tag#667,intrafficisland
Tag#666,intrafficisland
AppendixBTreeAssessmentDataSheet
G
G
G
F(P)
F(P)
F
G
G
0
0
Total
ManitobaMaple(dominant),Siberian
Elm,BlackLocust,Apple,NorwayMaple,
WhiteMulberry,BlackWalnut
4
0
5
0
7
0
0
0
4
0
Potential
TPZ Condition Conflict
CityofTorontoCategories
(m) (G,F,P,D) withRCD* AdditionalNotes
12345
ManitobaMaple(dominant),Siberian
Elm,BlackLocust,Apple,NorwayMaple,
n/a
F
Yes
0
0
0
0
0
WhiteMulberry,BlackWalnut
3.9
No
0
3
CityofTorontoCategories(asperArboristReportforDevelopmentApplications ,June2010)
1.Treeswithdiametersof30cmormore,situatedonprivatepropertyonthesubjectsite.
2.Treeswithdiametersof30cmormore,situatedonprivateproperty,uptowithin6metresofthesubjectsite.
3.TreesofalldiameterssituatedonCityownedparklandwithin6metresofthesubjectsite.
4.OnlandsdesignatedunderCityofTorontoMunicipalCode,Chapter658,RavineandNaturalFeatureProtection,treesofalldiameterssituatedwithin
10metresofanyconstructionactivity.
5.TreesofalldiameterssituatedwithintheCityroadallowanceadjacenttothesubjectsite.
*ͲPotentialConflictwithReferenceConceptDesign(RCD)anticipatedrequiringtreeortreegroupstoberemoved.Finaldeterminationofpreservation
andremovaltooccurat50%designstage.
5Ͳ15
Species
26 Multiplespecies(hedgerow)
Tree
#
DBH
(cm)
G
3.7
16
17 Gleditsiatriacanthosvar.inermis
ThornlessHoneylocust
Amelanchiersp.
18
Serviceberrysp.
Amelanchiersp.
19
Serviceberrysp.
Amelanchiersp.
20
Serviceberrysp.
Amelanchiersp.
21
Serviceberrysp.
Acerplatanoides
22
NorwayMaple
Acerplatanoides
23
NorwayMaple
Acernegundo
24
ManitobaMaple
Acernegundo
25
ManitobaMaple
Project#:300035344
ProjectName:GOCaledoniaStationEA
G
3.8
26
G
16 Gleditsiatriacanthosvar.inermis
ThornlessHoneylocust
3.8
19
15 Gleditsiatriacanthosvar.inermis
ThornlessHoneylocust
Tag#668,intrafficisland
0
CityofTorontoCategories
12345
DateofAssessment:Oct.1,2014&Mar.12,2015
Assessor:KevinButt
Potential
TPZ Condition Conflict
(m) (G,F,P,D) withRCD* AdditionalNotes
Tag#665,epicormicsprouts(low),in
3.8
G(F)
No
trafficisland
17
Species
DBH
(cm)
AppendixBTreeAssessmentDataSheet
14 Gleditsiatriacanthosvar.inermis
ThornlessHoneylocust
Tree
#
Project#:300035344
ProjectName:GOCaledoniaStationEA
7UHH6WXGLHV/LPLWDWLRQV
7KLVUHSRUWGUDZLQJVDQGGDWDLHTXDOLWDWLYHDQGTXDQWLWDWLYHPHDVXUHPHQWVDUHLQWHQGHGWR
LQIRUPWKHUHFLSLHQWDQGUHYLHZHUVRIWKHUHSRUWRIWKHWUHHVFRQGLWLRQDWWKHWLPHRIWKH
DVVHVVPHQW7KHDVVHVVPHQWPD\EHOLPLWHGE\WKHIROORZLQJFRQVWUDLQWV
$FFHVV±WUHHLVORFDWHGRIIVLWHRUWKHRQVLWHORFDWLRQLVQRWUHDVRQDEO\DFFHVVHG
:HDWKHU±DFFXPXODWHGVQRZDURXQGWKHEDVHRULQEUDQFKDWWDFKPHQWVPD\REVFXUH
GHIHFWV
Appendix C
6HDVRQ±ELRWLFLQGLFDWLRQVHJIROLDJHFKORURVLVRUIXQJDOIUXLWLQJERGLHVDUHRQO\REYLRXV
IRUDSRUWLRQRIWKH\HDU
Limitation of Tree Studies
9LVXDOREVWUXFWLRQV±(OHPHQWVVXFKDVRWKHUWUHHV¶FDQRSLHVFDQSUHYHQWWKHYLHZRIWKH
HQWLUHWUHH
7KHVWXG\LVFRPSOHWHGIURPWKHJURXQGXVLQJD'%+WDSHRUWUHHFDOLSHU1RQLQYDVLYHWRROV
VXFKDVELQRFXODUVDQGDVRXQGLQJKDPPHUPD\EHXVHGWRSURYLGHDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQ
DERXWGHIHFWVDQGFKDUDFWHULVWLFV([FDYDWLRQRIWKHURRW]RQHDQGRWKHULQWHQVLYHDQDO\VHV
KDYHQRWEHHQFRPSOHWHGXQOHVVVWDWHG
,WPXVWEHXQGHUVWRRGWKDWWUHHVPD\QRWPDQLIHVWVLJQVRUV\PSWRPVHJGLHEDFNRIVRPH
LPSDFWVHJURRWFRPSDFWLRQLPPHGLDWHO\DQGVRUHFHQWFKDQJHVWRWKHWUHHRULWVJURZLQJ
FRQGLWLRQVSULRUWRWKHDVVHVVPHQWPD\QRWEHDSSDUHQWWRWKHDVVHVVRU$OVRFKDQJHVWRWKH
WUHHFRQGLWLRQUHVXOWLQJIURPGDPDJHZHDWKHULQIHVWDWLRQVGHIHFWVVRLOGHFD\OLJKWPRLVWXUH
H[SRVXUHHWFPD\RFFXUDIWHUWKHDVVHVVPHQW
Appendix C
1RWUHHLVZLWKRXWVRPHOHYHORIULVNZKHUHDWUHHPD\IDLODQGVWULNHDWDUJHW0LWLJDWLRQ
RSWLRQVLISURYLGHGZLOOQRWHOLPLQDWHULVNEXWDUHSUHVFULEHGWUHDWPHQWVWRUHGXFHULVNEDVHGRQ
WKHPHDVXUHGDQGDVVHVVHGIDFWRUVDWWKHWLPHRIDVVHVVPHQWVXEMHFWWRVLWHDQGDVVHVVPHQW
FRQVWUDLQWV
,GHQWLILFDWLRQRIWKHRZQHUVKLSRIDVVHVVHGWUHHVLHRQVLWHRURIIVLWHPDGHLQWKHUHSRUWLV
EDVHGRQWKHOHJDOVXUYH\7KHDVVHVVRURIWUHHVXVHVWKHSRLQWORFDWLRQRIWKHWUHHSURYLGHGRQ
WKHVXUYH\DQGWKHOLPLWVRISURSHUW\WRDVVLJQRZQHUVKLSLQWKHUHSRUWDQGDVVRFLDWHGPDWHULDOV