HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix C2 - Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Appendix C-2
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
for the Ventana Specific Plan
In the City of Fontana, County of San Bernardino, California
Prepared for:
ELMT Consulting
Contact: Travis J. McGill, Director/Biologist
2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 | Santa Ana, CA 92711
Prepared by:
Golden State Land & Tree Assessment
George J Wirtes, MS, ISA Certified Arborist
Report Date: July 4, 2021
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 1
Section 2: Background ......................................................................................................... 2
2.1 - Project Location and Description ........................................................................ 2
2.2 - Site and Vicinity Characteristics .......................................................................... 3
2.3 - Assignment and Scope of Survey ....................................................................... 5
2.4 - Survey Method and Health Assessment ............................................................. 6
2.5 - Hazard Risk Assessment .................................................................................... 6
2.6 - Local Tree Regulation (Fontana Municipal Code Section 28:61-75) .................. 7
2.7 - Limitations and Exceptions of Assessment ......................................................... 8
Section 3: Subject Trees and Observations ..................................................................... 10
3.1 - Species Assessment ......................................................................................... 11
3.2 - Observations ..................................................................................................... 11
Section 4: Discussion and Recommendations ................................................................ 16
4.1 - Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 16
4.2 - Discussion ......................................................................................................... 16
4.3 - Recommendations ............................................................................................ 16
4.3.1 - Non-status Tree Replacement ........................................................... 16
4.3.2 - Trees Preserved ................................................................................. 16
4.3.3 - Migratory Bird Treaty Act .................................................................... 16
4.3.4 - Tree Protection during Construction ................................................... 16
Section 5: Qualifications Of Arborist ................................................................................ 18
Section 6: References ......................................................................................................... 19
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 1
SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This arborist survey has been performed at the request of ELMT for a proposed residential development
within the Ventana Specific Plan (excluding Planning Area 6) in the City of Fontana, California. The field
survey associated with this report was performed on June 28th, 2021.
The subject trees were tagged with an aluminum tag containing a unique number. As part of this survey,
details of each tree were recorded documenting their species, stature, health, local environment as well as
conditions in which they occur. In all, 68 trees were assessed onsite involving one distinct species. The
only species observed onsite was the red river gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) comprising 100% of the
trees within the project site. Due to lack of irrigation, poor maintenance and landscaping, only 26 (38.2%)
of the trees onsite are in fair to good health and can be preserved. In addition, 42 trees (61.8%) onsite
qualify as “Heritage trees” given their position in existing windrows. No other trees onsite qualify as special
status trees.
The City of Fontana’s Municipal Code outlines provisions and guidelines for tree removal, installation,
preservation, and maintenance within the City; this is especially important when considering native and
special status tree species within the City. All trees that are intended for removal as part of a project require
a removal permit and must be approved by the Planning Director. The Director must approve final
mitigation involving replacement tree species and size as well.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 2
SECTION 2: BACKGROUND
2.1 - Project Location and Description
The site is the Ventana North Fontana Specific Plan, located west of Citrus Avenue immediately adjacent
to Duncan Canyon Avenue to the north and south; it is east of Interstate 15 and north of Interstate 210 in
the City of Fontana in the County of San Bernardino (see Figure 1 below). The proposed project includes
the improvement approximately 96.7 acres to a residential development with associated infrastructure and
landscaping. Planning Area 6 is excluded in this assessment as its tree inventory was performed under
separate cover in January of 2021.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 3
2.2 - Site and Vicinity Characteristics
The elevation of the project area ranges from 1,820 to 1,700 feet above mean sea level and slopes gently to
the southwest. For the vicinity, the Sunset Zone is 18, and the USDA Hardiness zone is 10a. As indicated
in Table 1 below, one distinct soil series occurs within the site boundary. This soil series is described by
the Natural Resource Conservation Service as alluvium, derived from granite (see Table 1 below).
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 4
Table 1. Soils on Site
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres Percent
HaC HaC—Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Setting
• Landform: Alluvial fans
• Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
• Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
• Down-slope shape: Linear
• Across-slope shape: Linear
• Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
• H1 - 0 to 12 inches: sandy loam
• H2 - 12 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam
43.0 44.5%
TvC Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes
Setting
• Landform: Alluvial fans
• Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
• Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
• Down-slope shape: Linear
• Across-slope shape: Linear
• Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
• H1 - 0 to 36 inches: gravelly loamy sand
• H2 - 36 to 60 inches: gravelly sand
53.7 55.5%
Totals for Area of Interest* 96.7 100.0%
* Includes the 17.2 acres of Planning Area 6.
The vegetation community onsite includes non-native, ornamental trees, ruderal as well as native flora,
and bare ground. The site contains no structures and can be easily accessed by pedestrian or vehicular
traffic (see Plate 1 below).
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 5
Plate 1. This is a current (January 8, 2021), aerial view to the NW showing the position of windrows
within the project site with east-west orientation.
2.3 - Assignment and Scope of Survey
The task assigned to Golden State Land & Tree Assessment (GSL&T) was to conduct a tree survey and
health assessment of all trees within the project area as defined in Section 2.1 above. The survey was
performed to identify the different tree species found within the project boundary, assess their health, and
provide insight as to which trees may be retained as part of the planned improvement. A health assessment
was performed cataloging the health and stature parameters of each tree onsite. This included, but was not
limited to; recording total diameter at breast height (DBH), canopy spread, tree height, apparent
disease/decay, other signs of potential hazard, and pest damage. A potential risk assessment was also
conducted keeping public safety in mind. All documentation in this report is in compliance with standards
and requirements published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). This report includes
recommendations and mitigation measures meant to satisfy all applicable ordinances and permit guidelines.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 6
2.4 - Survey Method and Health Assessment
Prior to the field survey, the City of Fontana’s website was accessed to review specific tree protection
guidelines. An aerial photograph was used as a visual guide during the assessment. A handheld Global
Positioning System (GPS) device and GPS-enabled smartphone with digitized project boundaries were used
to identify the location of each subject tree. The crown-width was estimated by pacing, and the height of
each subject tree was visually estimated using a tangent height gauge. These data were recorded on field
sheets, and associated aluminum numeric tags were affixed to trees on the north side at BH for later
reference. Aerial views were captured using a DJI Mavic Air 2 controlled by a DJI Fly smartphone app.
Tree status (relative condition, stature, and health) was conducted by ISA arborist/biologist, George Wirtes
from ground level with the aid of binoculars. Canopy spread was assessed by pacing. To estimate wood
integrity, a rubber mallet was occasionally used to assess possible decay within the tree stem and flare. As
indicated earlier, no invasive procedures were performed. Visual characteristics were recorded on field
sheets, and twig/leaf samples as well as digital photographs were taken as needed to assure accurate
identification. Overall health and general appearance of each tree was numerically rated (Health/General
Appearance Rating - 1-Good, 2-Fair, 3-Poor, 4-Decline/dead) based on the aforementioned conditions. The
local environment was also assessed in relation to the tree species and conditions of its location (Local
Environment Rating - 1-Good, 2-Fair, 3-Poor, 4-Inappropriate). For this rating, the species was considered
in relation to the environment. Other conditions were also considered such as fence lines, utilities,
competing canopies, grade cuts/slope, etc.
The position of the subject trees was recorded using a GPS whose data was exported into GIS for periodic
illustration over aerial photographs.
2.5 - Hazard Risk Assessment
The International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) recommends a Hazard Assessment to be included with
arborist reports. Such an assessment is an important component of any report and is critical if trees are to
be located near public areas such as parks, walkways, residences, and buildings. This tree assessment
includes a Level 2 Basic Risk Assessment as defined by ISA Best Management Practices. This type of
assessment is limited to evaluating trees and obvious signs of defects such as:
• Dead or broken structures
• Cracks
• Weakly attached branches and co-dominant stems
• Missing or decayed wood
• Unusual tree architecture or distribution
• Obvious loss of root support
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 7
A risk rating is assigned to each tree based on its defects, aesthetics, apparent health, location and the
nearby targets (people or property). As defined by ISA the ratings are defined below:
1. Low - Low-risk category applies when consequences are negligible, and likelihood is unlikely, or
consequences are minor, and likelihood is somewhat likely.
2. Moderate - Moderate risk situations are those for which consequences are minor and likelihood is very
likely or likely or likelihood is somewhat likely, and the consequences are significant or severe.
3. High - High-risk situations are those for which consequences are significant and likelihood is very likely or
likely or Consequences are severe, and likelihood is likely.
4. Extreme - The extreme risk category applies in situations in which failure is imminent and there is a high
likelihood of impacting the target and the consequence of the failure is severe. The tree risk assessor should
recommend that mitigation measures be taken as soon as possible.
It is impossible to maintain a tree free of risk. A tree is considered hazardous when it has a structural
defect that predisposes it to failure, and it is located near a target.
• A target is person or property that may sustain potential injury or property damage if a tree or a
portion of a tree fails.
• Target areas include sidewalks, walkways, roads, vehicles, structures, playgrounds, or any other
area where people are likely to gather.
• Structurally sound and healthy trees may also be hazardous if they interfere with utilities,
roadways, walkways, and sidewalks, or if they obstruct motorist vision.
• Common hazards include dead and diseased trees, dead branches including bark, stubs from
topping cuts, broken branches (hangers), multiple leaders, tight-angled crotches, and an unbalanced
crown. Evaluation of risk is as follows: 1-Good, 2-Fair, 3-Poses risk, and 4-Hazardous.
2.6 - Local Tree Regulation (Fontana Municipal Code Section 28:61-75)
Chapter 28.61-.75 of the FMC (or Code) addresses tree protection, maintenance, and replacement policies.
It outlines the definition of a “heritage tree”, “significant tree”, and “specimen tree” and the procedures
necessary to replacing them within a property. As stated in the City’s Code, “Except as provided in section
28-65, no person shall remove or cause the removal of any heritage, significant or specimen tree unless a
tree removal permit is first obtained.”
Heritage tree means any tree which:
1. Is of historical value because of its association with a place, building, natural feature or event of
local, regional or national historical significance as identified by city council resolution; or
2. Is representative of a significant period of the city's growth or development (windrow tree,
European Olive tree); or
3. Is a protected or endangered species as specified by federal or state statute; or
4. Is deemed historically or culturally significant by the city manager or his or her designee because
of size, condition, location or aesthetic qualities.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 8
Windrow means a series of trees (minimum of four), usually a variety of eucalyptus, planted in a closely
spaced line (no more than ten feet apart) to provide a windbreak for the protection of property and/or
agricultural crops.
Significant tree means any tree that is one of the following species:
Genus/species Common name
• Juglans californica Southern California black walnut (one specimen onsite)
• Quercus agrifollia Coast live oak
• Cedrus deodora Deodora cedar
• Platanus racemosa California (western) sycamore
• Platanus acerifolia London plane
Specimen tree is defined as a mature tree (which is not a heritage or significant tree) which is an excellent
example of its species in structure and aesthetics and warrants preservation, relocation or replacement as
provided in sections 28.66, 28.67 and 28.68. Specimen trees shall not include any tree located on a private
parcel of property of less than one acre zoned for residential use.
2.7 - Limitations and Exceptions of Assessment
This survey was conducted in a manner that draws upon past education, acquired knowledge, training,
experience, and research. It was conducted to the greatest extent feasible, and although the information
gathered reduces risk of tree failure/decline, it does not fully remove it.
No diagnostic testing was performed during this assessment. This survey associated with this Arborist
Report included no soil sampling, root excavation, trunk coring/drilling or any other invasive procedure.
The determinations of damage due to pest infestation and decay were made solely on outward appearance
and inspection of the tree structures. Not all tree defects may be visible from the ground. Epiphytic growth
can also obscure defects on the stem and in the canopy of a tree. Arborists cannot detect every condition
that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms subject to attack by
disease, insects, fungi and other forces of nature. Many aspects of tree health and environmental conditions
are often not detectable (internal decay, poor root anchoring, etc.). Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree
will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time.
The statements made in this report do not take into account the effects of climate/wind extremes, vandalism,
or accident (whether physical, chemical, or fire). In addition, this area is known to have periodic, high
velocity Santa Ana winds from transient high-pressure ridges. Golden State Land & Tree Assessment
cannot, therefore, accept any liability in connection with these factors, or where prescribed work is not
carried out in a correct and professional manner in accordance with current ISA good practice. The
authority of this report ceases at any stated time limit within it, after one year from the date of the survey
(if none stated), when any site conditions change, or after pruning (or other activity) not specified in this
report.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 9
The goal of this survey is to recommend measures to limit risk exposure while enhancing the beauty and
health of each tree onsite. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations contained within
this report, or seek additional advice. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to
eliminate all risk is to remove all trees onsite.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 10
SECTION 3: SUBJECT TREES AND OBSERVATIONS
During the site survey, specific measurements and parameters of all trees onsite were recorded on tree
assessment worksheets; these data have been transferred into the table in Appendix A at the end of this
document.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 11
3.1 - Species Assessment
During the survey, tree assessments were conducted according to general ISA and City requirements; GPS
waypoints were recorded, as were specific details of each tree. The tree species represented onsite are
described in detail below, and a comprehensive table is provided in Appendix A of this report. In general,
the species onsite were appropriate for the location. A species profile is provided below for each species
observed along with their count.
Red river gum **
Eucalyptus camaldulensis
This species is native to Australia. Its bark and twigs can be a litter problem. Cal-
IPC (California invasive plant council) classifies the invasiveness of this plant as
limited. Its growth habit is erect or spreading and requires ample growing space.
This species has evergreen foliage.
Height: 45 - 150 feet. Width: 45 - 105 feet.
Growth Rate: 36 or More Inches per Season.
The longevity of this species is 50 to 150 years. It tolerates exposure of full sun to
Partial Shade. This species prefers wet to dry soil and is drought tolerant.
It prefers clay, loam or sand textured soil. It is susceptible to beetle borers, oak
root rot and root rot. Its branch strength rated as medium and root damage
potential rated as moderate.
68
** Cal-IPC (California Invasive Plant Council) invasive tree species
Source: UFEI 2021
3.2 - Observations
In all, 68 trees consisting of a single distinct species were assessed (see Figure 2 below). The red river
gum was the only species observed within the site accounting for 100% of the total number of trees within
the project area. The age of the trees onsite ranged from mature to senescent and the health from rigorous
to dead. Because of neglect and poor maintenance, 45 (52.9%) of the trees onsite must be removed due to
potential for failure, poor form and aesthetics, declining health or damage.
Plate 2. This a view of a cavity with internal decay
above a branch collar (#902).
Plate 3. This is a view of internal deadwood with
evidence of termites and borings (#903).
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 12
Plate 4. This is a view of a tree with a co-dominant stem
(#903).
Plate 5. This is a view of upper canopy deadwood of a
tree in decline (#906).
Plate 6. This is a view of exposed deadwood beneath
infected tissue (#907).
Plate 7. This is a view of stained soil at the base of a tree
likely due to disposed motor oil (#912).
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 13
Plate 8. This is a view of decayed wood within an
unclosed branch cut (#917).
Plate 9. This is a view of a gallery produced by a
borer (#916).
Plate 10. This is a view of stained wood possibly due
to infected tissue (#919).
Plate 11. This is a view of internal deadwood within
an unclosed wound (#919).
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 14
Plate 12. This is a view of a topped tree trunk with
matured sprouters (#932).
Plate 13. This is a view of included bark within the
crotch between two codominant stems (#934).
Plate 14. This is a view of a decay at a stem flare
(#924).
Plate 15. This is a view of sprouters that matured into
codominant stems closing a topped stump (#949).
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 15
Plate 16. This is a view of a stump that has sprouted
leaving an unclosed area with weak branch attachment
(#952).
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 16
SECTION 4: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 - Conclusion
Within the project site boundary, 68 trees were assessed composed of a single distinct species within three
windrows or relic windrows. No trees onsite were native to California, and all are of an invasive type, the
red river gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis). In addition, 42 of the 68 trees onsite were arranged within
existing windrows qualifying them as Heritage Trees (according to the Fontana Municipal Code). No other
trees onsite have any other special designations. If consistent with the site plan, 26 of the 68 trees (38.2%)
are in fair to good health and may be preserved.
4.2 - Discussion
As indicated, most of the trees onsite are in poor to good condition due to inadequate maintenance and care.
Many trees onsite were also dead or present a hazard to people and property. Of the trees present onsite,
42 (61.8%) should be considered for removal due to poor form, health, aesthetics or increased liability for
failure.
4.3 - Recommendations
4.3.1 - Non-status Tree Replacement
Removal of living, native and non-native trees may result a biological impact. Recommended mitigation
for non-status living trees removal is replanting in accordance with the City’s municipal code as provided
in the Appendix B below. Removal of any trees must be preceded by authorization from the City’s Planning
Department.
4.3.2 - Trees Preserved
If it is decided to preserve any trees onsite, an ongoing maintenance and monitoring plan is recommended;
this is to ensure public safety and minimize liability due to potential tree failure. Strategic pruning
compliant with ISA standards must be performed to subordinate non-primary, codominant stems, and
canopy deadwood should be removed. Regular maintenance is recommended according to ISA standards.
4.3.3 - Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and CDFG Code, removal of any trees, shrubs, or any
other potential nesting habitat should be conducted outside the avian nesting season. The nesting season
generally extends from early February through August, but can vary slightly from year to year based upon
seasonal weather conditions.
4.3.4 - Tree Protection during Construction
Building/grading near trees requires that they are healthy at the start of the project for the stand to recover
well. Some older trees have little tolerance for root damage or other stress factors. Younger, more vital
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 17
trees are more tolerant of changes in their surroundings. However, each change in soil compaction,
irrigation, under plantings, and other condition takes some of an older tree’s strength and vigor and
further diminishes its health. The main stresses and risks of construction are:
• Soil compaction
• Lack of water or changes in the site hydrology
• Change of grade in the root zone
• Physical damage to tree roots and structure
• Dumping of potentially toxic construction wastes
• Lack of pest control and other care
• Dust
• Human error
Mature trees take a long time to heal from, or respond to, injury. It could take 10 years for some trees to
make a visible improvement in health after construction impacts occur. On the other hand, it could take
10 years for a tree to visibly start declining after cutting roots, compacting the soil, or raising the grade.
1. Dripline fencing must be placed a minimum of 1 foot in radius from the tree per 1 inch of diameter at breast
height (for example, 6-inch trunk = 6 feet protection radius/12 feet diameter).
2. Dripline fencing must be erected so that it is visible and structurally sound enough to deter construction
equipment, foot traffic, and the storing of equipment under tree canopies.
3. Raising or lowering the grade in the root zone of trees can be fatal or ruin the health of trees for years to
come. Grade change and soil compaction force out the oxygen and literally press the life out of the soil. A
retaining wall can be used to minimize the amount of the root zone that is affected, but it is essential that
the footing is not continuous. Gravel and aeration pipes should be placed inside the retaining wall before
the fill is placed. Consult with a qualified civil engineer for proper design calculations.
4. Trenching within the protection zone must be avoided wherever possible. Most of the roots are in the top 1
to 2 feet of soil, and trenching can sever a large percentage of roots.
5. Oil from construction equipment, cement, concrete washout, acid washes, paint, and solvents are toxic to
tree roots. Signs should be posted on the fencing around trees notifying contractors of the fines for
dumping. Portable latrines that are washed out with strong detergents can damage the fine roots of the
trees. Portable latrines should not be placed near trees, nor where frequent and regular foot traffic to them
will compact the soil below the trees.
6. Construction creates large amounts of dust, and the oaks and any other trees to be preserved will need to be
kept clean. Dust reduces photosynthesis on all trees. Strict dust control measures must be implemented
during construction to minimize this impact, and an occasional rinsing with a solution of water and
insecticidal soap will help control pests.
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 18
SECTION 5: QUALIFICATIONS OF ARBORIST
Mr. Wirtes is a Certified Arborist (CH-08084) with the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and a
Registered Consulting Arborist (#738) with the American Society of Consulting Arborists. Mr. Wirtes
was ISA certified in November of 2005 and has conducted numerous tree assessments for residential
properties that involve oak and other tree species. Most notably, Mr. Wirtes has created an oak
regeneration plan for a 2.3-acre project site in Ventura County as mitigation within a specific plan
development as well as a Joshua tree preservation plan in the City of Palmdale, CA. He has performed
numerous tree surveys is Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties on sites with as many as
400 trees. Mr. Wirtes’ education includes a Bachelor of Science in Biology and a Master of Science in
Environmental Science from California State University at Fullerton.
I certify that the details stated herein this report are true and accurate:
________________________________________________________________
George Wirtes, MS, RCA 738
ISA Certified Arborist, CH-08084
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 19
SECTION 6: REFERENCES
Calflora. 2021. Website at http://www.calflora.org.
Cal-IPC 2021. Website at https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/
City of Fontana, 2021. Municipal Code posted on website:
https://library.municode.com/ca/fontana/codes/code_of_ordinances
Hickman, J.C. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California
Press. Berkeley, California.
Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2008. Website at http://ortho.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/
University of California, 2021. California Tree Failure Report Program website at
http://ucanr.edu/sites/treefail/
University of Florida Environmental Horticulture Department 2021. Website at
http://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/
UFEI, 2021. Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute website at https://selectree.calpoly.edu/
Virginia Tech, Dendrology Dept. 2021. Website at
http://www.cnr.vt.edu/DENDRO/dendrology/main.htm
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 20
Appendix A - Tree Species Observed
Note - This tree survey and the details recorded below are meant to characterize the trees within the property. The assessment is not exhaustive, but is a balance between the competing forces of in-
depth description and cost effectiveness. The goal was to accumulate enough data to make a judgment as to what role, if any, the existing trees may have in the proposed project.
Tree
Tag # Species1
DBH (inches)
Height
(feet)
Canopy Width
(feet) Canopy Width (feet) Gen App Env Risk Rating Conclusion 1st
Trunk
2nd
Trunk
3rd
Trunk
4th
Trunk
5th
Trunk
6th
Trunk Total N E S W (North on top)
901 Red River Gum 24 24 55 6 14 20 16 6 2 2 2-3 75 Prune
Some psyllids, Lateral fissures, Some minor lean 16 14
20
902 Red River Gum 20 20 40 18 12 18 20 18 2 2-3 3 55 Remove
Severe decay mid-section, Increased liability, Poor prognosis 20 12
18
903 Red River Gum 12 13.5 13.5 39 48 4 8 26 16 4 3 3 3 45 Remove
Decay at crotch, In decline, Co-dominant stem 16 8
26
904 Red River Gum 26 26 38 8 16 21 12 8 2-3 2-3 2-3 65 Prune
Fossorial burrows, Some minor cankers, Trap ground squirrels 12 16
21
905 Red River Gum 33 6 39 40 9 6 22 10 9 2-3 2 2-3 65 Prune
Minor dieback 10 6
22
906 Red River Gum 14 3 3.5 20.5 25 3 6 16 6 3 3-4 2-3 3-4 40 Remove
Diseased 6 6
16
907 Red River Gum 34 34 50 16 15 19 21 16 3 2-3 3 55 Remove
Decay at flare 21 15
19
908 Red River Gum 13 13 33 5 8 20 18 5 2-3 2-3 2-3 60 Prune
Canopy Dieback, Marginal, Prune & Monitor 18 8
20
909 Red River Gum 13 14 6 3 36 33 8 10 19 12 8 2 2-3 2-3 65 Prune
Lean 12 10
19
910 Red River Gum 22 22 42 9 12 23 11 9 2-3 2-3 2-3 60 Prune
Vertical fissures, Severe Lean, Good Vigor 11 12
23
911 Red River Gum 26 6.5 7 8 4.5 52 38 12 18 26 20 12 3 3 3 50 Remove
Co-dominant stems, Decreased Vigor 20 18
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 21
26
912 Red River Gum 60 60 50 16 18 22 21 16 2-3 2-3 2-3 60 Prune
Mechanical Wound, Fossorial Burrows, Dumped construction materials at base, Co-dominant stem 21 18
22
913 Red River Gum 10 3 4 17 35 6 6 18 16 6 2-3 2-3 2-3 55 Remove
Crowded canopy, Decline, Dieback, Poor planting 16 6
18
914 Red River Gum 12 3 3.5 3 21.5 33 8 20 17 15 8 2-3 2-3 3 50 Remove
Crowded canopy, Mid-stem canker, Dieback 15 20
17
915 Red River Gum 48 9 5 13 75 32 18 15 36 18 18 3 3 3 45 Remove
Multibranched, Increased decay at flare 18 15
36
916 Red River Gum 16 12 10.5 38.5 38 18 16 8 24 18 3 3 3-4 45 Remove
Co-dominate stem, bore holes, Upper canopy dead wood, Dead central lean 24 16
8
917 Red River Gum 18 18 36 8 18 18 24 8 3 3 3 45 Remove
Upper Canopy dead wood, Decay at base, Sweep lean, Debris at base 24 18
18
918 Red River Gum 25 25 45 10 12 18 17 10 2-3 2-3 3 50 Remove
Minor upper canopy dead wood, large canker mid stem, Increased liability 17 12
18
919 Red River Gum 24 20 44 52 10 18 34 16 10 2-3 2-3 2-3 55 Remove
Co-dominate stem, Fair to poor crotch, Decay at branch, Exuding sap, Increased liability 16 18
34
920 Red River Gum 25 12 37 48 14 8 14 8 14 2-3 2-3 2-3 60 Prune
Upper canopy dead wood, Lower stem large canker, Co-dominate stem 8 8
14
921 Red River Gum 38 38 40 12 20 16 16 12 2-3 2-3 2-3 60 Prune
Sloughing bark, Minor deadwood 13 20
16
922 Red River Gum 23 23 38 18 12 22 14 18 2 2 2 75 Prune
Good specimen 14 12
22
923 Red River Gum 11 11 32 6 6 8 5 6 2-3 2-3 2-3 65 Prune
Some upper canopy dead wood 5 6
8
924 Red River Gum 10 30 9 49 41 14 12 20 18 14 2-3 3 3 55 Remove
Large canker at flare, Increased liability 18 12
20
925 Red River Gum 29 29 52 8 14 16 16 8 2-3 2-3 2-3 65 Prune
Minor upper canopy dead wood, Crowded canopy 16 14
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 22
16
926 Red River Gum 8.5 8.5 22 4 6 12 10 4 3 2-3 3 55 Remove
Crowded canopy, Stem decay, Poor placement, Poor prognosis 10 6
12
927 Red River Gum 14 14 35 6 10 18 6 6 3 3 3-4 45 Remove
Major stem decay 6 10
18
928 Red River Gum 8 8 24 6 7 5 5 6 2-3 3 3 50 Remove
Decreased canopy development, Vigor is fair to poor, Lean 5 7
5
929 Red River Gum 20 10 6 36 52 12 6 24 18 12 2-3 3-4 3 50 Remove
Topped, Stem decay, Poor growth 18 6
24
930 Red River Gum 18 7 6 31 42 10 8 18 6 10 3 2 2-3 65 Prune
Stressed, Large callus tissue mass in canopy 6 8
18
931 Red River Gum 16 16 31 8 12 8 4 8 2-3 2-3 2-3 65 Prune
Diseased branch, Prune & monitor, Marginal, Decline 4 12
8
932 Red River Gum 10 14 24 39 4 6 20 6 4 3 3 3-4 45 Remove
Large canker at stem, Topped with decay in stem at flare 6 6
20
933 Red River Gum 10 8 18 22 5 8 22 16 5 3 3 3 45 Remove
Co-dominate stem, Decay at flare 16 8
22
934 Red River Gum 27 4.5 31.5 40 8 12 26 14 8 2-3 2-3 2-3 65 Prune
Good vigor and form 14 12
26
935 Red River Gum 15.5 15.5 36 12 4 18 16 12 2-3 2-3 2-3 65 Prune
Some upper canopy deadwood, Poor flare, Decline, Prune and monitor 16 4
18
936 Red River Gum 13 13 30 6 14 13 5 6 2 2-3 2-3 70 Prune
Good form and vigor 5 14
13
937 Red River Gum 16 16 41 8 18 14 6 8 2 2 2-3 70 Prune
Good form and vigor 6 18
14
938 Red River Gum 9 36 11 4 12 6 11 2-3 2-3 2-3 65 Prune
Minor dieback 6 4
12
939 Red River Gum 7.5 9 42 16 11 12 6 16 3 2-3 3 55 Remove
In decline, Upper canopy dead wood 6 11
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 23
12
940 Red River Gum 10 38 6 3 4 2 6 2-3 3 3 50 Remove
Large canker at lower stem, Poor prognosis 2 3
4
941 Red River Gum 28 45 8 12 16 8 8 2-3 2 2-3 70 Prune
Fissures, Included bark at branch attachment 8 12
16
942 Red River Gum 8.5 48 0 8 22 5 0 3 3 3 50 Remove
Topped, Poor form 5 8
22
943 Red River Gum 15 45 0 5 12 16 0 2-3 2-3 2-3 65 Prune
Minor decay at flare, off balance, strategically prune if saved 16 5
12
944 Red River Gum 10 22 2 2 9 4 2 3 3 3 50 Remove
Borer damage 4 2
9
945 Red River Gum 14 36 12 1 15 3 12 3 2-3 3 50 Remove
Stump sprouters, Decline, Stressed 3 1
15
946 Red River Gum 18 38 8 6 20 12 8 2-3 2-3 2-3 65 Prune
Upper canopy dead wood, Good to fair vigor 12 6
20
947 Red River Gum 9.5 22 4 5 4 4 4 3 3 2-3 50 Remove
Poor vigor and form 4 5
4
948 Red River Gum 4.5 6 21 3 4 6 4 3 2 2-3 2 70 Prune
Stump sprouters, Co-dominate stem, Subordinate sprouters 4 4
6
949 Red River Gum 10 7 4.5 42 5 8 6 14 5 '2-3 3 3 55 Remove
Decay in crotch, Poor development, Increased liability 14 8
6
950 Red River Gum 18 42 10 14 10 12 10 2 2 2-3 75 Prune
Good form and vigor 12 14
10
951 Red River Gum 7 24 0 1 8 3 0 2-3 3 3 55 Remove
Sprouters, Poor flare development 3 1
8
952 Red River Gum 8 5.5 32 4 12 8 8 4 3-4 2-3 3-4 45 Remove
Major flare decay 8 12
8
953 Red River Gum 6 5.5 2 2.5 21 6 5 8 4 6 2-3 3 2-3 55 Remove
Central stem decay, Distressed 4 5
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 24
8
954 Red River Gum 9 5 2.5 25 4 4 6 4 4 3 3 3 50 Remove
In decline, Upper canopy dead wood 4 4
6
955 Red River Gum 34 51 21 18 22 16 21 2-3 2-3 2-3 60 Remove
Massive flare 16 18
22
956 Red River Gum 4 4 4.5 18 0 8 16 9 0 3 3 3 45 Remove
Topped, Decay at central section 9 8
16
957 Red River Gum 12 12 6.5 10 11 36 14 15 24 16 14 3 3 3 45 Remove
Multi-stem, Topped with multiple sprouters 16 15
24
958 Red River Gum 8.5 5 9 8 35 0 18 16 12 0 2 2-3 3 65 Prune
Good vigor, Multi-dominate, Brace and prune 12 18
16
959 Red River Gum 3.5 3.5 4 5 25 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 3 50 Remove
Sprouters, Topped 6 6
6
960 Red River Gum 9.5 12 40 6 6 22 14 6 2-3 3 3 55 Remove
Co-dominate stem, Upper canopy dead wood, Decay at flare 14 6
22
961 Red River Gum 14 14 40 9 15 21 8 9 3 2-3 2-3 55 Remove
Diseased, Sloughing, Poor prognosis 8 15
21
962 Red River Gum 9 4.5 28 7 8 6 5 7 3 3 3 50 Remove
Topped, Poor Form 5 8
6
963 Red River Gum 13 7 3 26 5 7 21 18 5 2-3 3 3 50 Remove
Topped with sprouters, Poor branch attachment 18 7
21
964 Red River Gum 8 8 5 26 3 4 18 10 3 2-3 3 3 50 Remove
Closed sprouters, Poor form 10 4
18
965 Red River Gum 22 16 39 24 12 27 23 24 2-3 3 3 50 Remove
Co-dominate, Canker at base of large stem 23 12
27
966 Red River Gum 9 21 4 6 4 4 4 3 2-3 3 50 Remove
Upper canopy dead wood, Diseased 4 6
4
967 Red River Gum 32 20 17 42 15 15 34 18 15 2-3 2-3 2-3 65 Prune
Fair form, large specimen 18 15
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 25
34
968 Red River Gum 59 25 48 15 28 32 23 15 3 3 3 50 Remove
Central stem decay 23 28
32
Tree Survey and Arborist Report
Page 26
Appendix B - Fontana Municipal Code Mitigation Matrix
Heritage and Significant Tree Replacement
Table No. I for Trees Under Seven Inches in Diameter Trunk Diameter (Approximate)/Replace With
Scale Rating (10% to 100%) 0.75″/ 2″/ 3.25″/ 4.5″/ 6″/
Very poor Below 45% 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal.
Poor 45%— 55% 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal.
Average 60%— 70% 1/15 gal. 1/24″ box 1/36″ box 1/48″ box 1/60″ box
Very good 75%— 85% 1/15 gal. 1/24″ box 2/36″ box 2/48″ box 2/60″ box
Excellent 90%—100% 1/15 gal. 1/24″ box 3/36″ box 3/48″ box 3/60″ box
Heritage and Significant Tree Replacement
Table No. II for Trees Seven Inches in Diameter or Greater
Scale Rating (10% to 100%) Number Removed Replace With Minimum Size
Very poor Below 45% 1 1 15 gallons
Poor 45%—55% 1 1 15 gallons
Average 60% 1 4 24″ box
65% 1 4 24″ box
70% 1 4 36″ box
Very good 75% 1 4 36″ box
80% 1 4 48″ box
85% 1 4 48″ box
Excellent 90% 1 4 60″ box
95% 1 4 60″ box
100% 1 4 72″ box
Other Tree Replacement
Table No. III for Trees under Seven Inches in Diameter Trunk Diameter (Approximate)/Replace With
Scale Rating (10% to 100%) 0.75″/ 2″/ 3.25″/ 4.5″/ 6″/
Very poor Below 45% 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal.
Poor 45%— 55% 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal.
Average 60%— 70% 1/15 gal. 1/15 gal. 1/24″ box 1/36″ box 1/48″ box
Very good 75%— 85% 1/15 gal. 1/24″ box 1/36″ box 1/48″ box 2/48″ box
Excellent 90%—100% 1/15 gal. 1/24″ box 1/36″ box 2/48″ box 3/48″ box
Other Tree Replacement
Table No. IV for Trees Seven Inches in Diameter or Greater
Scale Rating (10% to 100%) Number Removed Replace With Minimum Size
Very poor Below 45% 1 1 15 gallons
Poor 45%—55% 1 1 15 gallons
Average 60% 1 4 24″ box
65% 1 4 24″ box
70% 1 4 36″ box
Very good 75% 1 4 36″ box
80% 1 4 48″ box
85% 1 4 48″ box