Tree Report ATS806-VicPkDevKBR - DPTI...road 10 metres from base, currently minimal incursion in CRZ...

Tree Report ATS806-VicPkDevKBR

Tree Report for Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd Attn: John Domino 186 Greenhill Road Parkside SA 5063

Re: Victoria Park Development

Report commissioned by: John Domino Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd Report compiled by: Arborman Tree Solutions Pty Ltd Chris Tozer – Consulting Arboriculturist Quantified Tree Risk Assessment – Licensee 927 Advanced Certificate Arboriculture International Society of Arboriculture - Certified Arborist: AU-0032A

of 22

Arborman Tree Solutions Pty Ltd – Professionals in Arboriculture Phone: 1300 886 001

Table of Contents

Brief......................................................................................................... 3

Assessment............................................................................................ 4

Conclusion ........................................................................................... 13

Images................................................................................................... 15

Glossary and References ................................................................... 18

Appendix – Site Plan........................................................................... 19

Appendix – TreeAZ Categories.......................................................... 22

6 Todd Street ATS806-VicPkDevKBR – 8th May 2007 Fax: (08) 8440 2463 Port Adelaide SA 5015 Email: [email protected]

of 22


Brief

Arborman Tree Solutions was asked to inspect and assess trees within Park 16-Victoria Racecourse that appeared to be in the vicinity of the proposed development according to the plans provided. This included:- Locating and assessing the trees that are within the prescribed area of potential future

development. Recording the location of each tree using a GPS system.

Assessing the general condition and structure of each individual tree and providing

information in relation to tree species, tree health, tree height, canopy width, trunk circumference, trunk diameter and age.

Undertake a rating of the suitability of each tree for retention in the urban environment for 10

years or more. Calculating each individual trees Critical Root Zone using accepted arboricultural methods.

Commenting if the proposed development is likely to make an incursion into the calculated

Critical Root Zone of each individual tree. Providing any further relevant comments or information.

6 Todd Street ATS806-VicPkDevKBR – 8th May 2007 Fax: (08) 8440 2463 Port Adelaide SA 5015 Email: [email protected]

of 22


Assessment

Easting Northing Tree Number Botanic Name Common

Name Height Width Circumference Actual DBH CRZ Health Structure Age ULE TreeAZ Rating Development

Impact Comments Comments

282660.9 6132391 1 Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum 17 14 2.91 0.83 7.47 Fair Fair Mature >10 years

A2 - Minor defects that could be addressed by limited remedial care or work to adjacent trees.

Development appears outside CRZ. Existing track/road 5 metres from

base.

Primary unions ok. No significant

structural issues.

Health fair moderate epicormic growth.

Southern stem dieing back. Already had

reduction pruning. Pic 1



Development appears outside CRZ. Existing

track- road 1metre from

base.

Primary unions ok. No significant

structural issues.

Health fair. Moderate epicormic growth.

282695.6 6132375 3 Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum 16 9 2.47 0.78 9.36 Poor Fair Senescent < 10

years

Z8 - Poor trees with no realistic potential to

improve.

Development appears to be

within CRZ

Poor health, poor foliage density, predominantly

epicormic growth.

Dominant stem removed, significant

cambium dieback/scaring on

trunk.

282715.6 6132367 4 Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum 17 11 2.76 0.83 9.96 Poor Fair Senescent < 10

years


improve.

Development appears to be

within CRZ

Poor health, poor foliage density,

moderate epicormic growth.

Dominant northern stem removed

resulting in significant cambium

dieback/scaring.

282840.2 6132282 5 Araucaria heterophylla

Norfolk Island Pine 22 10 2.98 0.89 8.01 Good Good Mature >10 years

A1 - No significant defects and could be retained with minimal

remedial care.

Development appears outside CRZ. Currently no incursion into

CRZ.

Good health. Good structure. Pic 2

282835.8 6132278 6 Phoenix canariensis

Canary Island Date Palm 15 9 1.83 0.53 4.77 Good Good Mature >10 years


remedial care.


CRZ.

Good health. Good structure.

282829.9 6132272 7 Araucaria cunninghamii Hoop Pine 23 14 3.1 0.95 11.4 Fair Good Mature >10 years


remedial care.


CRZ.


282840.3 6132263 8 Melia azedarach White Cedar 12 9 2.01 0.56 6.72 Poor Fair Senescent < 5 yearsZ8 - Poor trees with no

realistic potential to improve.


CRZ.

Poor health, remaining foliage

predominantly epicormic growth.

Fair structure.

282830.4 6132282 9 Araucaria heterophylla

Norfolk Island Pine 17 12 3.06 0.89 8.01 Good Good Mature >10 years


remedial care.


CRZ.


6 Todd Street ATS806-VicPkDevKBR – 8 May 2007 Fax: (08) 8440 2463 Port Adelaide SA 5015 Email: [email protected]

th

of 22

Arborman Tree Solutions Pty Ltd – Professionals in Arboriculture Phone: 1300 886 001 th




282863.1 6132267 10 Platanus x acerifolia London Plane 14 10 1.99 0.59 5.31 Fair Poor Mature >10 years


improve.

Development appears outside CRZ. Existing

stand 4.5m from base, minimal

incursion

Fair health.

Lopped tree, canopy formed by regrowth

with 6 metres of extension.

282971.6 6131623 11 Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum 18 21 7.26 2.05 18.4395 Good Fair Mature >10 years


Development appears outside CRZ. Fullarton road 7 metres

from base, currently minimal incursion in CRZ

Fair health. Fair structure. Pic 3

282974.7 6131619 12 Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum 7 9 1.01 0.25 1.5 Fair Fair Young >10 years




Fair health.

Fair structure. Biased canopy due to

competition with Tree 11.





Fair health.

Fair structure. Biased canopy due to

competition with Tree 11.





Fair health. Fair structure





Fair health. Fair structure

282976.5 6131597 16 Cupressus macrocarpa

Monterey Cypress 15 11

2.00+1.40+1.20 = 4.60

Average 1.53 0.69 8.24252 Fair Fair Mature < 10

years


improve.



Fair health, some dieback.

Fair structure soil level raised significantly

around base.





Good health, some minor epicormic

growth.

Fair structure Moderate history of

medium to large diameter branch

failure


of 22









Fair health. Moderate trunk damage.

282979.6 6131566 19 Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum 7 5 0.35 0.07 0.42 Poor Fair Young < 10

years


improve.



Poor health.

282977.7 6131561 20 Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum 9 9 0.55+0.55 = 1.10

Average 0.55 0.12 0.7225 Fair Poor Young < 10 years


improve.



Multi trunk stump re-growth.

282976.3 6131558 21 Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum 14 11 1.35 0.36 2.16 Good Fair Young >10 years




Good health.

282979 6131547 22 Cupressus macrocarpa

Monterey Cypress 9 9 1.25+1.15 = 2.40

Average 1.20 0.45 5.36254 Poor Fair Mature < 10 years


improve.



Poor specimen. Stunted and restricted growth.

282981.4 6131544 23 Melaleuca sp. Paper Bark 9 7 0.85+0.85+0.55

= 2.25 Average 0.75

0.32 2.88141 Fair Fair Mature >10 yearsZ8 - Poor trees with no

realistic potential to improve.



Non significant specimen.

282980.6 6131543 24 Melaleuca sp. Paper Bark 9 7 0.60+1.15 = 1.75Average 0.88 0.21 1.8554 Fair Fair Mature >10 years


improve.



Non significant specimen. One of 3 in group

282981.3 6131538 25 Melaleuca sp. Paper Bark 9 11 0.70+0.95+0.55+0.65+0.65 = 3.50

Average 0.70 0.30 2.69098 Fair Fair Mature >10 years


improve.



Non significant specimen. One of 3 in group


of 22





282980.3 6131534 26 Cupressus macrocarpa

Monterey Cypress 13 9 1.41 0.40 4.8 Poor Fair Mature < 10

years


improve.



Non significant specimen. Poor health stunted

282970 6131539 27 Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum 9 7 0.55+0.45 = 1.00

Average 0.50 0.11 0.68411 Fair Poor Young < 10 years


improve.

Development appears outside CRZ. Currently

minimal incursion in CRZ

Non significant specimen.

Co-dominant poor union

282982 6131523 28 Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum 21 18 4.03 1.18 10.62 Fair Fair Mature >10 years




Minor scar at base. Fair health/structure





Dieback/scaring canopy reduced potentially good

habitat.

282979 6131510 30 Olea europaea Olive Tree 7 4 0.71 0.16 1.44 Fair Poor Mature < 10 years


improve.



Poor specimen.

282973.8 6131506 31 Olea europaea Olive Tree 8 11 1.10+1.00 = 2.10 Average 1.05 0.39 3.50076 Fair Poor Mature < 10

years


improve.



Poor specimen.




minimal incursion in CRZ.

Good health. Moderate history of branch failure.





Fair health, moderate canker activity.

Moderate history of branch failure.



Development appears to be within CRZ.

Currently minimal incursion into

CRZ.

Fair health, moderate epicormic growth.



of 22





282702.8 6131388 35 Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum 17 14 3.05 0.93 8.37 Poor Fair Mature >10 years


improve.


Currently minimal incursion into

CRZ.

Poor health, significant epicormic

growth. Pic 4.


Average 2.05 0.84 7.60007 Poor Poor Mature < 10 years

Z5 - Severe damage/structural

defects that cannot be properly addressed by

remedial care.



Poor health, dead western stem.

Multiple fungal fruiting bodies at primary

union.










Average 1.71 0.69 6.16549 Fair Fair Mature >10 years






remedial care.
















of 22













Moderate history of branch failure. Pic 5

282608.1 6131588 46 Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum 13 9 2.23 0.63 3.78 Dead Poor Young 0 years Z4 - Dead, dying,

diseased or declining.



No habitat value.







Development appears to be within CRZ,

currently minimal incursion

Minor scaring at base. Epicormic

growth and deadwood indicating

tree stress

Dominant/Significant Tree. Pic 6


Z7 Severe damage/structural defects that can be

temporarily addressed by remedial care.



Significant hollow at base. Epicormic

growth and deadwood indicating

tree stress

Dominant/Significant Tree. Requires in-

depth assessment if retained and activity

within target area increases.

282552 6131521 50 Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum 13 9 1.65 0.46 2.76 Fair Fair Young >10 years













of 22





282547 6131513 53 Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum 15 12 1.97 0.46 2.76 Fair Fair Young >10 years




Co-dominant included bark union

forming.

282453.8 6131588 54 Brachychiton populneus Kurrajong 13 9 1.88 0.52 4.68 Fair Good Mature >10 years




Foliage density poor.

Biased canopy due to competition with adjacent trees in

group.

282456.4 6131584 55 Brachychiton populneus Kurrajong 15 11 2.13 0.62 5.58 Good Good Mature >10 years


remedial care.



282454 6131576 56 Corymbia ficifolia Red Flowering Gum 16 14 2.21 0.62 7.44 Fair Good Mature >10 years




Good foliage density, no indicators of stress/decline.

282455.2 6131569 57 Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust 9 5 2.25 0.65 7.8 Poor Poor Mature 0 years Z4 - Dead, dying,

diseased or declining.



Decaying trunk with epicormic growth.



Development appears outside CRZ, currently

minimal incursion

Scaring and potential hollow on southern trunk appears non-

significant.

Dominant/Significant Tree




minimal incursion

Reduced structure. Predominantly

epicormic growth.

Potential habitat. Dominant/Significant

Tree







Tree







Tree Pic 9


of 22











Tree Pic 9





282436.4 6132163 64 Eucalyptus cladocalyx Sugar Gum 17 12 2.10 0.60 7.2 Fair Poor Mature < 10

years


improve.



Lost central leader.

282438.4 6132171 65 Eucalyptus cladocalyx Sugar Gum 22 16 3.15 0.92 11.04 Fair Fair Mature >10 years

Z7 Severe damage/structural defects that can be

temporarily addressed by remedial care.


currently minimal incursion.

History of failure. Significant scaring, potential hollows.

Requires further inspection if to be retained. Consider

removal as a group. Pic 10




currently minimal incursion.

History of failure. Significant scaring, potential hollows.


removal as a group.

282433.5 6132172 67 Eucalyptus cladocalyx Sugar Gum 23 16 3.48 1.00 12 Fair Fair Mature >10 years


Development appears within CRZ. Currently

minimal incursion.

History of failure. Minor scaring.


removal as a group.




minimal incursion.

3 trees form 1 canopy.




minimal incursion.

3 trees form 1 canopy.

Lost eastern leader, biased canopy. Pic 11

282435 6132208 70 Eucalyptus cladocalyx Sugar Gum 21 16 4.42 1.29 15.48 Fair Fair Mature >10 years



minimal incursion.

3 trees form 1 canopy. History of failure.


of 22








Current incursion includes road at base bike at path

2 metres 2m

Moderate history of failure. Moderate epicormic growth

Pic 12




Current incursion includes road at base bike at path

2 metres

Moderate history of failure. Moderate epicormic growth

Pic 12


of 22

Arborman Tree Solutions Pty Ltd – Professionals in Arboriculture Phone: 1300 886 001 6 Todd Street ATS806-VicPkDevKBR – 8th May 2007 Fax: (08) 8440 2463 Port Adelaide SA 5015 Email: [email protected]

Conclusion

72 trees were assessed throughout the Victoria Racecourse Park 16 area that were considered to be within the vicinity of the proposed redevelopment of the site. Each tree was visually assessed taking into consideration health, structure, and canopy dimensions. Each tree was classified using the TreeAZ system. TreeAZ identifies trees suitable for retention or removal; effectively trees are classified in one of 17 criteria, giving the ability to quickly determine if the tree is worthy of protection or not; the tree population was narrowed down into 6 of the 17 available categories. These included: A1 - No significant defects and could be retained with minimal remedial care. A2 - Minor defects that could be addressed by limited remedial care or work to adjacent trees. Z4 - Dead, dying, diseased or declining. Z5 - Severe damage/structural defects that cannot be properly addressed by remedial care

including cavities, decay, included bark, wounds and excessively unbalanced. Z7 - Severe damage/structural defects that can be temporarily addressed by remedial care

including cavities, decay, included bark, wounds and excessively unbalanced. Z8 - Poor trees with no realistic potential to improve. The findings of the survey using the A-Z system are summarized in the following table.

Rating Number of Trees A1 6 A2 43 Z4 2 Z5 1 Z7 3 Z8 17

The Critical Root Zones of the trees were calculated and from which an estimation of whether any incursion would be made by the proposed development. The following table summarizes those trees that had no incursion, those that had some incursion and were recommended for removal and those that had some incursion and were worthy for retention. Number of trees with no incursion, Z or A rating. Number of trees with an incursion

recommended for removal. Z rating Number of trees with an incursion recommended for retention, A rating.

48 8 16 It is recommended, trees considered worthy of retention, that were identified as having some incursion into their Critical Root Zones be further assessed as to the level of incursion and its likely impact. Possible measures to reduce this incursion to within acceptable levels if the removal of the tree can be avoided may then be sought. Depending on the trees significance alternate design solutions may be required to affectively retain certain trees. It should be noted that three trees numbers 49, 53 and 65, which have been issued a Z7 rating, despite being classed as Z trees may have the potential to be retained in a low use target area as they are now, however in the current development proposal further assessment on their suitability for retention or removal should be sought in relation to the construction and potential increase in activity within their target area. Of the 16 trees that were issued an A rating that appear to be affected by the development 12 have a trunk circumference measured at one metre above ground level is greater than two metres

of 22


and they are therefore considered to be a regulated tree under the current provisions of the significant tree legislation. If by using an alternative design the 12 trees are able to be retained Tree Protection Zone principals must be applied; the maximum available area of the calculated Critical Root Zones must be fenced off forming the Tree Protection Zones for the tree prior to any development commencing at the site and remain in place until the completion of all works. A TPZ fence must be at least two metres high and be of a sturdy construction such as a chainmesh or similar and clearly signed TREE PROTECTION ZONE - NO ENTRY. Where the development makes an incursion into the CRZ the Tree Protection Zone must be fenced off 1-1.5 metres from the outer extremity of the development allowing for construction and maintaining maximum protection for the trees. Any incursion within a TPZ must be within acceptable limits of less than 10% of the entire root zone and the incursion supported and supervised by a suitably qualified Arborist. Any excavation that cannot be avoided within the TPZ, such as that for the footings, must be carried out by non-destructive techniques such as an Air-Spade or similar by or under the supervision of a suitably qualified Arborist. Any roots located during the excavation should be appropriately pruned. If substantial roots are located then alternate design and engineering solutions may be required. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this report and I hope it meets your needs. Should you have any questions or require further information, please contact me and I will be happy to be of assistance. CHRIS TOZER Consulting Arboriculturist Advanced Certificate Arboriculture Quantified Tree Risk Assessment – Licensee 927 International Society of Arboriculture – Certified Arborist: AU-0032A

of 22


Images

of 22


of 22


Glossary and References

Size: approximate height and width of tree in metres. Age: identification of the maturity of the subject tree. Useful Life Expectancy: expected number of the years that the subject specimen will

remain alive and sound in its current location and/or continues to achieve the relevant Principals of Development Control.

Current health of tree: visual assessment of tree health. Structure: visual assessment of tree structure. DBH: trunk diameter measured at 1.5 metres above ground level. Circumference: trunk circumference measured at 1 metre above ground level.

This measurement is used to determine the status of the tree in relation to the Significant Tree Legislation.

Critical Root Zone: area of root zone that should be protected from damage (CRZ

= 10DBH) References Australian Standard AS4373 – 1996; Pruning of amenity trees: Standards Australia. Matheny N. Clark J. 1998: Trees and Development a Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development: International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois, USA. Michael J Ellison 2005; Quantified Tree Risk Assessment used in the Management of Amenity Trees: Journal of Arboriculture Volume 31, No 2, March 2005 International Society of Arboriculture Champaign, Illinois, USA. Matheny N. Clark J. 1994: Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas: International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois, USA. Harris R. Clark J. Matheny N. 1983; Arboriculture, Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Vines: Third edition 1999; Prentice Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.

of 22


Appendix – Site Plan

The following two pages indicate the position of the trees as per the supplied plan.

of 22

Arborman Tree Solutions Pty Ltd – Professionals in Arboriculture Phone: 1300 886 001 6 Todd Street ATS806-VicPkDevKBR – 8 May 2007 Fax: (08) 8440 2463 Port Adelaide SA 5015 Email: [email protected]

th

of 22


Southern Section of Development Area


th

of 22


Appendix – TreeAZ Categories

The TreeAZ system use the categories/qualifiers below as a way of identifying trees suitable for retention or removal; effectively trees are classified in one of the following criteria, giving all concerned the ability to quickly determine if the tree is worthy of protection or not. The system was developed by Jeremy Barrell in the UK originally for use on development sites to prevent developers removing or keeping the wrong trees. The system is used in the UK, Europe and to a lesser extent the USA and Australia.

TreeAZ Categories (Version 6.04A) Field Sheet

Z Trees not worthy of being a material constraint: Not suitable for retention for more than 10 years

Policy exemptions: Trees that would normally be removed for local policy reasons

Z1 Alien, invasive or noxious species Small, young or regularly pruned trees/hedges: Trees that could be easily and realistically replaced in the short term

Z2 Small or young Z3 Formal hedges and trees regularly pruned to restrict size

High risk: Trees that would be removed within 10 years because of declining health or poor structural condition

Z4 Dead, dying, diseased or declining

Z5 Severe damage/structural defects that cannot be properly addressed by remedial care including cavities, decay, included bark, wounds and excessively unbalanced

Z6 Present or future instability because of poor anchorage or increased exposure Good management: Trees that would be severely pruned or removed within 10 years through responsible management

Z7 Severe damage/structural defects that can be temporarily addressed by remedial care including cavities, decay, included bark, wounds and excessively unbalanced

Z8 Poor trees with no realistic potential to improve Z9 Adversely interfering with adjacent trees Z10 Overgrown hedge or row of trees vulnerable to adverse weather events

Z11 Causing unreasonable inconvenience to existing properties (light, dominance, debris, interference, etc)

Z12 Causing or likely to cause damage to existing structures Z13 Unacceptably expensive to retain

A Trees worthy of being a material constraint: Suitable for retention for more than 10 years (Note: This excludes policy exemptions and small/young trees)

A1 No significant defects and could be retained with minimal remedial care A2 Minor defects that could be addressed by limited remedial care or work to adjacent trees

A3 Special significance for historical, commemorative or rarity reasons that would warrant extraordinary efforts to retain for more that 10 years

A4 Trees that may have legal protection for ecological reasons (Advisory requiring specialist input) NOTE: Trees that are very good examples of category A can be noted as AA and trees that are the worst

examples of category Z can be noted as ZZ.

Tree Report ATS806-VicPkDevKBR - DPTI...road 10 metres from base, currently minimal incursion in CRZ...

Documents

Transcript of Tree Report ATS806-VicPkDevKBR - DPTI...road 10 metres from base, currently minimal incursion in CRZ...