TREE SURVEY REPORT Mitcham Reserve Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 _____ 6 | Page Managing...

TREE SURVEY REPORT Mitcham Reserve

Prepared for: Chris Tozer Horticultural Officer – Trees City of Mitcham PO Box 21 Mitcham Shopping Centre Torrens Park SA 5062 10 September 2015 Prepared by: Michael Palamountain Consulting Arborist Tree Environs Pty Ltd

ATTACHMENT A1

Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________

2 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape

Table of Contents

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. 3

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 4

QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 4 SCOPE OF THIS SURVEY ....................................................................................................................................... 4

SURVEY METHOD ....................................................................................................................................... 5

OBSERVATIONS........................................................................................................................................ 12

SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................ 12 TREE DATA ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 TREE NUMBERS ............................................................................................................................................... 12 TREE SPECIES .................................................................................................................................................. 12 TRUNK CIRCUMFERENCE ................................................................................................................................... 14 TREE HEIGHT .................................................................................................................................................. 14 AGE CLASS ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 TREE HEALTH .................................................................................................................................................. 14 TREE STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................................................. 15 SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................................... 15 RISK ............................................................................................................................................................. 15 TREE MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 16

APPRAISAL ............................................................................................................................................... 17

OVERALL CONDITION OF TREES........................................................................................................................... 17 SPECIES DIVERSITY ........................................................................................................................................... 17 RISK MITIGATION ............................................................................................................................................ 21 MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................................................ 22

CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 23

RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................................. 24

ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix 1 – Tree Survey Data Appendix 2 – Site plan with tree numbers

ATTACHMENT A2



Summary 84 trees were assessed in Mitcham Reserve. Six trees qualify as regulated trees and thirteen trees qualify as significant trees under the Development Act 1993. Species diversity in the Reserve is limited to a single locally indigenous species, and several exotic species, some of which pose weed potential at the site. Species diversity needs to be improved. The majority of trees are in average to good health and have an average to good structure. 38 trees have a life expectancy in excess of 50 years and 39 trees have a life expectancy of less than 50 years. Thirteen trees are unlikely to see the next decade out. The majority of trees pose a low risk to the users of the site, with three trees posing a moderate risk, and no trees posing a high risk. Five trees currently have an unknown level of risk and may require further investigation. A range of tree management guidelines are presented, including the removal of six trees and pruning of fourteen trees. Ten poorly performing trees should be removed and replanted. Target management is recommended beneath larger remnant trees as opposed to tree pruning. This should include relocating paths and structures, and establishing exclusion zones with mulching and underplanting. To address these issues, consideration should be given to developing a Master Plan for Mitcham Reserve.

ATTACHMENT A3



Introduction I carried out a survey of 84 trees in Mitcham Reserve on the 17th and 18th August 2015 following a request from Chris Tozer, Horticultural Officer – Trees at the City of Mitcham. I was requested to carry out an audit of all trees to determine, condition, risk and life expectancy in order to determine maintenance requirements to maintain tree health and acceptable levels of risk at the site. Qualifications I have based this report on my site observations and the information provided to me. I have seventeen years’ experience in the field of arboriculture, both as a practicing (climbing) and consulting arborist. A summary of my qualifications includes:

• Bachelor of Science (Botany and Ecology) – University of Sydney (1994) • Diploma of Horticulture (Arboriculture) (2005) • Certified Arborist (#AU – 0007A) – International Society of Arboriculture (2003). I have

maintained Continuing Professional Development with this certification. • I am a registered consulting arborist with Arboriculture Australia. I have maintained

Continuing Professional Development with this certification. • Tree Risk Assessment Qualification - International Society of Arboriculture (2013)

Scope of this survey This report is concerned with an audit of all trees within Mitcham Reserve, bound by the following:

• Norman Walk to the north. • Old Belair Rd to the east. • Evans Ave to the south and south west. • The boundary fence common with Scotch College to the east.

N

ATTACHMENT A4



Survey method I carried out the survey at the site on the 17th and 18th August 2015. I had full access to the trees in question and observations were from what was visible from within the Reserve boundaries. I carried out a level 2 assessment of the treesi and all my observations were visual from ground levelii. All dimensions are estimates unless otherwise indicated. The tree survey collected the following information on the subject trees. Tree number The tree number in the survey data table corresponds with the tree locations marked on the aerial image attached at the end of the document. Tree numbering could be amended with the tree asset numbering system used by the City of Mitcham. Tree species Tree names are given as botanical names and common names. Most names are given to species level while a small number are noted only to generic level where species is uncertain. Trunk circumference Trunk circumference is measured 1m above natural ground level. The trunk circumference class is noted as follows:

• <2m • 2.0-3.0m - Regulated Treesiii under the Development Act 1993 • 3.0m+ - Significant Treesiv under the Development Act 1993

Please note that some exemptions apply to certain tree species in certain circumstances. These exemptions have been noted in the survey data. Tree height Tree height is noted in the following classes:

• Small tree (<10m) • Medium tree (10-20m) • Large tree (20m+)

Age estimate The age of trees are estimated to within ±10 years for younger trees and ±20 years for older trees. Tree age may not be accurate as growing conditions vary at each planting site and the trees may be younger or older than reflected by their actual size. Tree age may be determined more accurately from reliable historical data where available.

ATTACHMENT A5



Tree health Tree health and vitality are determined by assessing such factors as foliage colour, distribution and density, annual extension growth, the level of epicormic regrowthv, the number, size and location of dead branches, the presence and severity of dieback, the presence of pests and diseases in the crown, the presence and level of borer activityvi, the rate of wound closure and wood production in the trunk/scaffold limbs, the presence of soil contaminants or compacted soils, the presence of fungal fruiting bodies, evidence of root disturbance, or changes in soil levels. The following list outlines the range of health and vitality classes used.

• Good- Actively growing. Minor pest activity, few dead branches, good growing conditions. • Average- Moderate growth rate, moderate number of pests and diseases, moderate

number of dead branches, presence of epicormic shoots, minor crown dieback and other signs of stress. Trees in this category have the capacity to respond to improved growing conditions or other treatments.

• Below average - Reduced growth rate, significant pest or diseases issues present or evidence of past activity present, foliage may be thinning, terminal dieback may be present, and an excessive number of dead branches may be present within the crown.

• Poor- Poor growth rate, poor foliage colour, distribution and density, moderate to high levels of pest infestation, severe dieback, excessive epicormic shoots present and other signs of severe stress. Trees in this category are unlikely to have the capacity to respond to improved growing conditions or other treatments.

• Dead – No live parts remaining. NOTE: Locally indigenous trees may still have value in the landscape even though they are dead.

Tree Structure Tree structure is recorded using the following classes.

• Good structure – The tree has stable form. Branch attachments are free of defects. Some minor structural defects or concerns may be present. Maintenance pruning or other treatments are capable of improving tree structure with minimal input and without adversely impacting tree health or appearance.

• Average structure – For a tree to qualify in this category it will have one or more of the

following structural issues; average form with an irregular crown, co-dominantvii stems with minor bark inclusionsviii, minor bark inclusions in the primary or secondary branch attachmentsix, a leaning trunk, a history of poor pruning (such as loppingx), minor trunk wounds and/or decay, over-extended stems or branches with moderate leverage, poorly taperedxi stems or branches, a history of small branch failures or rubbing limbs, minor root damage. Maintenance pruning or other treatments may be capable of improving tree structure with moderate input, however there may be adverse impacts on tree health and/or appearance.

• Below average - For a tree to qualify in this category it will have one or more of the following structural issues; co-dominant stems or main branches with major bark inclusions (bark inclusions are likely to be accompanied by signs of instability), a strongly leaning trunk, a history of poor pruning, major trunk wounds and/or decay may be present, over-extended stems or branches with excessive leverage, or limbs may be poorly tapered. Maintenance pruning or other treatments have limited potential to provide a means of improving tree structure without adverse impacts on tree health and/or appearance. Planning for long term removal may be required.

ATTACHMENT A6



• Poor structure – For a tree to qualify as having poor structure it will have one or more of

the following significant structural issues: Poor form, very irregular crown, co-dominant stems or main branches with a major bark inclusion and signs of instability, a severely leaning trunk, severely over-extended stems or branches with excessive leverage, poorly tapered branches, a history of very poor pruning, major trunk wounds, large open cavities and areas of decay, a history of significant branch failure, major damage to the root crown or an unstable root system. Pruning or other treatments are unlikely to improve tree structure without major adverse impacts to tree health and/or appearance. Removal may be required.

Surrounding environment Comment is made of the tree in relation to its surrounding environment. This may include any number of the following:

• Overhang to important structures, footpaths, roadways, driveways, car parking areas, seating areas, lawn areas, adjacent property, play areas etc...

• Interference with signs, structures, lighting, visibility, power lines.

ATTACHMENT A7



Tree risk assessment The International Society of Arboriculture Tree risk assessment method has been used to determine the risk posed by this tree at the site to persons and property over the defined tree assessment timeframe (3 years) during ‘normal’xii weather conditions. I am a qualified user of the ‘tree risk assessment’ method. More information about this method can be found in the American Standard ANSI A300 Part 9: - Tree Shrub and other woody plant management – Standard Practices (Tree risk assessment a. Tree structure assessment) and Tree Risk Assessment Manual by International Society of Arboriculture 2013. Tree risk is calculated in 2 steps: Part 1- Likelihood matrix

The likelihood of a failure occurring

x The likelihood of the failure impacting a target

Factors taken into account during the visual tree assessment include the location of targets relative to the tree condition of concern, surrounding site factors, tree age, health and vigour, species profile, response growthxiii, loads on the defect, history of failurexiv and the likelihood of failurexv. The target occupancy ratexvi, branch fall characteristics and factors that may protect the target are also consideredxvii. The likelihood matrix below is used to determine the likelihood of branch failure impacting the targets;

Likelihood of failure

Likelihood of impacting target Very low Low Medium High

Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely

Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely

Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely

Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

ATTACHMENT A8



When considering the occupancy rates of the various targets that these trees overhang, the following factors have been considered. This is based on my observations during the current tree survey, the conversations on park usage with Chris Tozer from the City of Mitcham, and my experiences as a parent who has used the park for various gatherings over the years on weekends.

• Mitcham Reserve is a high profile Reserve, well known to the local community and the broader population of Adelaide.

• The park is used on a daily basis by parents with toddlers as a daytime play activity for up to a couple of hours at a time (occasional use).

• The park is used on a daily basis by some parents and school children who walk along paths and through the Reserve to attend the nearby Scotch College Adelaide Junior School and ELC, generally before school and after school. This is typically for short periods of time (occasional use). Many other families do not walk through the Reserve and access the school other ways.

• Members of the general public walk through the Reserve, exercise in/through the Reserve, use seating in the Reserve etc. on a daily basis. This is typically for short periods of time (occasional use).

• Structures including play equipment, BBQs and the uncovered and covered picnic tables are permanent non-mobile structures (constant use).

• There are large open lawn areas used by families during good weather and on weekends for family gatherings. These families can be present for several hours at a time and may contain large numbers of people. These gatherings occur less frequently during weekdays, during colder months and during unpleasant weather. These gatherings are not likely to occur during adverse weather. On average, per day, over the entire year, these gatherings occur on an occasional basis, not forming a large proportion of the day. However, to err on the side of caution, the occupancy rate during peak periods is considered to be frequent use.

• In general, when the weather is favourable, more people are likely to use the Reserve. It is also during more favourable weather that branch failures are less likely to occur.

• In contrast, during adverse weather conditions, the Reserve is less likely to be used. It is during adverse weather that branch failures are more likely to occur.

• The risk assessment in this survey considers normal weather conditions. This risk assessment cannot determine a risk outcome during adverse weather conditions.

• Belair road is a busy road, and passes on the eastern side of Mitcham Reserve. This road carry 23,400 vehicles per dayxviii. The traffic is heavily concentrated during peak hours. Traffic is less frequent during ‘work/school hours’ and even less frequent at night. Overall, the occupancy rate is considered frequent.

• Structures and vehicles provide some level of protection to people from small and medium branch failures.

ATTACHMENT A9



Part 2 – Risk rating matrix The likelihood of failure and impact

(carried over from part 1) x

The consequences of the failure The consequencesxix are determined by a complex of all the variable factors at the site. These include the size of the tree part of concern, fall characteristics, factors that may protect the target, the level of damage or injury that could be expected and the significance of the target value, be it monetary or otherwise. The risk rating matrix below is used to assign an overall tree risk rating.

Likelihood of

failure & impact

Consequences

Negligible Minor Significant Severe

Very Likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High

Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate

Unlikely Low Low Low Low The overall tree risk ratingxx for each tree is then determined and presented in the survey data. Life expectancy The useful life expectancy is an estimate of the number of years a tree can reasonably be expected to remain healthy with acceptable levels of risk in the current growing conditions. Consideration should also be given to site use and the way tree structure and risk interact with the cost of maintenance. Simply remaining alive is not sufficient in the majority of cases. Trees should continue to provide amenity and other benefits. For some trees, habitat value may contribute to or increase a trees useful life expectancy. Management recommendations A variety of appropriate risk mitigation options are possible depending on circumstances. Whether a client chooses to mitigate risk depends on their perception of risk and what level of risk they find acceptable, as well as the cost, aesthetics and inconvenience of mitigation. Management recommendations are provided in the survey data that I believe are most appropriate to mitigate risk. Following these recommendations the residual risk may be reduced to a lower level. These recommendations may include;

• Pruning • Target management or exclusion • Tree removal • Cabling & bracing

ATTACHMENT A10



In addition, some management recommendations may be provided, irrespective of tree risk. Where the risk posed by the tree is considered to be low, pruning works may not be necessary to reduce risk. However, some tree pruning works could be considered in an effort to maintain an acceptable level of risk. The recommended works will vary depending on circumstances and species and may include maintenance pruning designed to improve tree form and reduce the impact of the tree on its surroundings. Management priority The priority for the management recommended is given. The suggested time frames are as follows.

• Urgent As soon as reasonably practical • High Within 6 months • Medium Within 2 years • Low As funds allow

Tree management timeframes are typically shorter where a risk issue is identified. In some cases, tree management may also have a shorter time frame, irrespective of the current risk rating. This may be the case where the management of a tree now is necessary to avoid an elevated risk issue developing at some time in the future. A good example is the formative pruning of young trees, which is very cost effective and typically reduces or eliminates potential risk issues in the future.

ATTACHMENT A11



Observations Site description Mitcham Reserve was the original village green, the centre of colonial life in the Mitcham Village. Today this Reserve is a popular place for picnics and events. Brownhill Creek runs through the Reserve and there are sheltering trees, playground equipment, public toilets, electric barbecues, and seatingxxi. Tree data The data collected on the trees is compiled in a table attached at the end of the report. Tree numbers A total of 84 trees were surveyed. Several trees formed a group with similar qualities amongst them. These groups were given 1 tree number but may include 2 or more trees. Tree species The site consists of a large number of a single species of locally indigenous trees, a small number of Australian native trees and a large number of exotic ornamental trees, some of which have weed potential in a riparian environment. Tree species in the Reserve including;

Locally indigenous (x39) Australian native (x3) Exotic (x42) Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum (x39)

Corymbia citriodora Lemon Scented Gum (x2)

Fraxinus ‘Raywood’ Claret Ash (x3)

Ficus sp. Fig Tree (x1) (possibly Port Jackson Fig)

Lagunaria patersonia Norfolk Island Hibiscus (x1)

Olea europaea Olive (x2)

Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine (x1)

Populus nigra ‘Italica’ Lombardy Poplar (x1)

Salix babylonica Willow (x2)

Schinus areira Peppercorn (x10)

Ulmus parvifolia Chinese Elm (x14)

Ulmus procera English Elm (x8)

Just outside the Reserve, but within the Brownhill Creek environment are several Desert Ash (Fraxinus angustifolia subsp. Oxycarpa) which have high weed potential in a creek environment.

ATTACHMENT A12



There are several large, remnant River Red Gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) in the Reserve, that provide a link to our pre-European heritage of the land and that also provide very important ecological and environmental values. These remnant trees have been reduced in number since European settlement of Adelaide. They have been augmented by tree plantings of various themes over the decades. Aerial imagery of 1949 shows some early tree plantings in the Reserve included many exotic tree species (indicated by their darker foliage when compared to the local River Red Gums) and are likely to have included Willows, Elms, Poplars, Ash, Pines, Peppercorns, Olives and others, many of which remain in the Reserve today. These have altered the character and ecological values of the Reserve from its pre-European days.

ATTACHMENT A13



In more recent years, attempts have been made to plant Australian native and locally indigenous tree species, to varying success. Just outside the site, downstream to the west along Brownhill Creek are numerous other exotic tree species, including Desert Ash and English Elm. Trunk circumference A breakdown of the trunk circumference on site is as follows;

• There are 53 trees with a trunk circumference below 2m • There are 6 trees with a trunk circumference between 2.0 and 3.0m and qualify as

regulated trees under the Development Act 1993 • There are 13 trees with a trunk circumference of 3.0m or greater and qualify as significant

trees under the Development Act 1993 • There are 11 trees with a trunk circumference of greater than 2m and are exempt from the

regulations. o 6 trees - Exempt species rule. o 6 trees - Exempt due to being a dead tree.

Tree height A breakdown of the tree height on site is as follows;

• 42 small trees and shrubs below 10m • 30 medium trees between 10-20m • 12 large trees greater than 20m tall

Age class The age distribution of the current tree population within the Reserve is as follows:

• 18 trees <10 years old • 17 tree 10-20 years old • 13 trees 20-40 years old • 7 trees 40-60 years old • 12 trees 60-80 years old • 2 trees 80-100 years old • 2 trees 100+ years old • 13 trees 150+ years old

Tree health The majority of trees on site are in average to good health. A breakdown of tree health is as follows;

• 46 trees are in good health • 27 trees are in average health • 3 trees are in poor health • 7 trees are dead

ATTACHMENT A14



Tree structure The majority of trees on site have an average to good structure. Many trees have a history of recent pruning to manage parts or all of their crowns. A breakdown of tree structure is as follows;

• 35 trees have a good structure • 39 trees have an average structure • 10 trees have a poor structure (typically the younger newly planted trees)

Surrounding environment Comment on the various targets present beneath these trees and their estimated occupancy rate have been presented in the survey methodology. Risk Explain risk issues at site:

• No trees present an extreme risk to the users of the site • No trees present a high risk to the users of the site • Three trees present a moderate risk to the users of the site (trees 42, 56, 61) • 76 trees present a low risk to the users of the site • Five trees have an unknown level of risk to the users of the site (trees 32, 33, 47, 50, 51)

ATTACHMENT A15



Tree management The trees surveyed have management recommended as follows; Action and Priority Not regulated Regulated Significant

Remove – Medium

Within 2 years

56, 61, 83

Remove – Low

As funds allow

63, 73, 75

Remove and replant 8, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 59, 60, 62

Prune – High

Within 6 months

19, 42

Prune – Medium

Within 2 years

4, 25, 77 55 53

Prune – Low

As funds allow

10, 20, 37, 45, 69, 81 72

Aerial inspection to determine risk

47, 50 32, 33, 51

No Pruning required 37 non-regulated trees 4 regulated trees

7 significant trees

Passive exclusion zone – low risk trees

35 34, 36, 52

Passive exclusion zone – unknown risk

47, 50 32, 33, 51

ATTACHMENT A16



Appraisal Overall condition of trees Mitcham Reserve is a popular public Reserve, valued by the local community for its open lawn areas for family gatherings, play equipment and it’s ‘natural’ environment. The current tree survey assessed 84 trees in the Reserve. Only six qualify as regulated trees and another thirteen qualify as significant trees. The vast majority are trees less than 80 years of age, many of which are not regulated. The majority of the trees are in average to good health and have average to good structure. There is evidence that the majority of these trees have been pruned in recent years. The survey identified that the majority of trees present a low risk to the users of the site, with only three trees posing a moderate risk. The life expectancy of this tree population varies widely, with 38 trees with a life expectancy in excess of 50 years and 39 trees with a life expectancy of less than 50 years. Thirteen trees are unlikely to see the next decade out. Species diversity In terms of species diversity, Mitcham Reserve has a limited range of tree species that do not provide adequate levels of species and habitat diversity in a Reserve with far greater potential. Since European settlement, the vegetation in Mitcham Reserve has changed, and is now characterised by a large proportion of exotic trees consisting of ten different species. This reflects a greater diversity than the locally indigenous tree species (only one species). While it is acknowledged that these exotic tree species reflect the tree planting trends of previous eras, and provide a wide range of human benefits in the locality, their habitat and biodiversity value is very limited. In addition, some of these exotic trees have weed potential in a creekline situation where seed or vegetative parts can freely float downstream and re-establish new undesirable exotic trees, particularly the Desert Ash (just outside the Reserve) and Willow. Further away from the creekline are Peppercorn trees and Olive trees, Aleppo Pines and a Poplar which also have weed potential near a creek environment. However, as these are some distance from the creekline, their weed potential is reduced. These weed species are all identified in the City of Mitcham Invasive Plant List (http://www.mitchamcouncil.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Invasive_Plants_List_Fact_sheet.pdf). There are many creek sites across Adelaide where these species germinate freely, over populate creek embankments and outcompete locally indigenous tree and shrub species. If these weed species are retained at the site, they will require active management to ensure they do not become established in Brownhill Creek.

ATTACHMENT A17

http://www.mitchamcouncil.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Invasive_Plants_List_Fact_sheet.pdf



The Reserve also has impressive examples of some remnant vegetation that provides links to our pre-European Heritage, namely the large River Red Gums along Brownhill Creek (see images below). These trees provide very important habitat and biodiversity value in the local area, even when they are dead. However, the diversity of this locally indigenous vegetation has been reduced to a single tree species over the last 180 years. There are 39 River Red Gums in Mitcham Reserve, seventeen of which are estimated to be over 80 years of age, most of which are still growing well. This is a long lived species that will continue to live for another century or two. However, this species requires a greater level of associated locally indigenous plant diversity to improve the overall biodiversity of the site.

ATTACHMENT A18



Attempts have been made to replant the Reserve with more River Red Gums. Some have been planted in the last few decades, many of which are establishing well. However, those that have been planted within the last decade close to the creekline are of a poor quality and are unlikely to thrive. These trees are loose in the ground, have excessive leaf pest activity and are suspected of having poor root architecture. These trees are unlikely to make it past 10 years of age. These trees should be removed and replanted.

Excessive leaf pests Loose in ground

ATTACHMENT A19



To improve biodiversity in the Reserve and to improve the ‘natural’ environment, consideration should also be given to planting more locally indigenous plants across the entire Reserve, including riparian species adjacent to Brownhill Creek, a variety of groundcovers and shrubs and a greater diversity of larger tree and shrub species. Species diversity is very important, particularly in the modern age where tree diseases (such as Myrtle Rust) and climatic change can significantly affect tree populations that lack diversity. It is important to note that the dead River Red Gums are important to the maintenance of biodiversity at the site. These trees have numerous hollows and many different bird species were observed to be using these hollows. While dead trees are exempt from control under the Development At 1993, their retention is warranted in my view to maintain habitat value in the Reserve. If the larger remnant trees are managed in any way, consideration must be given to the local fauna that occupy them. A survey and management plan for these animals should be considered.

ATTACHMENT A20



Risk mitigation The risk assessment of these trees identified that the vast majority of trees (76 trees) pose a low risk to the users of the site. Three trees were identified as posing a moderate risk to the site (trees 42, 56 and 61). No trees were identified as posing a high risk to the users of the site. A range of management recommendations are presented in the survey data for many of these trees as follows:

• Six non-regulated trees have been recommended to be removed. • Fourteen trees have been recommended to have some level of pruning. • 48 trees to not require any pruning. • Ten trees should be removed and replanted (poorly performing River Red Gums)

Where trees are to be pruned or removed, the presence of existing fauna must be considered. For examples, existing bird and possums affected by such works may need to be carefully salvaged and relocated elsewhere within the Reserve. When managing the dead River Red Gums, clean cut pruning will result in trees with an ‘unnatural’ appearance. Therefore consideration should be given to ‘breaking’ weaker sections from the tree, leaving natural fracture points and hollow behind. Existing fauna will need to be appropriately managed for this strategy. There are five remnant River Red Gums that I have not been able to accurately determine risk levels for, from the ground based level 2 assessment (dead trees 47 and 50 and live trees 32, 33 and 51). These are all impressive, locally indigenous trees with important habitat and biodiversity value, but also have a history of branch failure and the presence of various hollows. An aerial assessment of these trees may be required to more accurately determine the likelihood of failure, and therefore, the overall risk. If an elevated level of risk is identified, for these remnant trees, then there may be a need to prune or remove trees to maintain acceptable levels of risk in the Reserve, particularly beneath these remnant trees. However, any such pruning or tree removal will adversely affect the very important habitat and biodiversity values that they currently provide and is not encouraged. Another strategy should be considered here. The preservation of veteran remnant trees and encouraging human occupation beneath such trees is not compatible. Either the trees need to be managed at the expense of all their environmental and ecological values, or the targets (people/paths/play equipment/seating etc.) can be managed, by excluding them from the area beneath them. By limiting human occupation beneath the older veteran trees, the overall risk is reduced by default. The trees will not need to be pruned and all their benefits can be retained. In addition, an aerial inspection may not be necessary. This can be a cost saving exercise. A simple risk mitigation strategy beneath such trees is to establish an exclusion zone. This can be done actively (with fencing), or passively (mulching and underplanting) or a combination of both (as seen in Heywood Park, Unley). While fencing may not be the most attractive option, it is an option to consider.

ATTACHMENT A21



Alternatively, a passive exclusion zone can be stablished by mulching the entire area beneath and beyond such veteran trees and underplanting them with locally indigenous ground covers, grasses, small and large shrubs and trees. This strategy has multiple benefits, including, but not limited to:

• Excluding extended periods of human occupation below and adjacent to trees without using fencing.

• Mulching improves soil health, which improves tree health. This has a flow on effect in promoting response growthxxii in trees, assisting in reducing the likelihood of branch failure.

• Underplanting improves the much needed plant diversity in the park. • Improved plant diversity also increases the diversity of other organisms, including but not

limited to reptiles, insects, birds, mammals, fungi etc. which improves the overall biodiversity and ‘natural’ feel of the Reserve.

• Acknowledges our pre-European heritage and their associated landscape. Other risk mitigation options include:

• Realigning of pedestrian paths away from such trees. • Relocate play equipment away from such trees. • Relocate seating, BBQ structures away from such trees.

Master plan development To address the range of issues raised in this report at Mitcham Reserve, including improving species diversity and mitigating risk, the development of a long term master plan should be considered. The issues raised in this report should form the basis of some of the Master Plan guiding principles. Other design factors could also be considered. Any final Master Plan should then be reviewed by Tree Environs to ensure the impacts on trees are kept to a minimum, and that risk is appropriately mitigated.

ATTACHMENT A22



Conclusions

• 84 trees were assessed in Mitcham Reserve.

• Six trees qualify as regulated trees and thirteen trees qualify as significant trees under the Development Act 1993.

• Species diversity in the Reserve is limited to a single locally indigenous species, and

several exotic species, some of which pose weed potential at the site. Species diversity needs to be improved.

• The majority of trees are in average to good health and have an average to good structure.

• 38 trees have a life expectancy in excess of 50 years and 39 trees have a life expectancy of less than 50 years. Thirteen trees are unlikely to see the next decade out.

• The majority of trees pose a low risk to the users of the site, with three trees posing a moderate risk, and no trees posing a high risk. Five trees currently have an unknown level of risk and may require further investigation.

• A range of tree management guidelines are presented, including the removal of six trees and pruning of fourteen trees. Ten poorly performing trees should be removed and replanted.

• Target management is recommended beneath larger remnant trees as opposed to tree pruning. This should include relocating paths and structures, and establishing exclusion zones with mulching and underplanting.

• To address these issues, consideration should be given to developing a Master Plan for Mitcham Reserve.

ATTACHMENT A23



Recommendations A summary of the tree management recommendations is set out below. Specific recommendations are set out on the pages that follow. Action and Priority Not regulated Regulated Significant

Remove – Medium

Within 2 years

56, 61, 83

Remove – Low

As funds allow

63, 73, 75

Remove and replant 8, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 59, 60, 62

Prune – High

Within 6 months

19, 42

Prune – Medium

Within 2 years

4, 25, 77 55 53

Prune – Low

As funds allow

10, 20, 37, 45, 69, 81 72

Aerial inspection to determine risk

47, 50 32, 33, 51

No Pruning required 37 non-regulated trees 4 regulated trees

7 significant trees

Passive exclusion zone – low risk trees

35 34, 36, 52

Passive exclusion zone – unknown risk

47, 50 32, 33, 51

ATTACHMENT A24



1. I recommend that the non-regulated and exempt species trees that are recommended for removal on health or risk grounds be removed. Development approval is not required to remove these trees.

2. I recommend that species diversity be improved at the site by removing some undesirable species with weed potential, and by replanting the site with locally indigenous plants including ground covers, grasses, shrubs and trees.

3. I recommend trees that are to be retained on site be managed as outlined in the tree survey data. Pruning must conform to the following guidelines.

o All pruning should conform to the Australian Standard AS 4373 – 2007 Pruning of

Amenity Trees. o All pruning should be carried out or supervised by appropriately qualified and

experienced arborists. o Pruning of many trees will comply with this Australian Standard and is not likely to

constitute a tree damaging activity. In these cases, development approval will not be required.

o Pruning to Australian Standard may not be achievable for some of the larger remnant trees. In this case, Development Approval would be required to undertake any such pruning that does not comply with this standard. This pruning should occur under the City of Mitcham Development Plan (consolidated 19th February 2015) as follows:

A regulated tree should not be removed or damaged other than where it can be demonstrated that one or more of the following apply: (b) the tree represents a material risk to public or private safety; (e) the work is required for the removal of dead wood, treatment of disease, or is in the general interests of the health of the tree. Significant trees should be preserved and tree-damaging activity should not be undertaken unless: (b) in any other case; (i) the work is required for the removal of dead wood, treatment of disease, or is in the general interests of the health of the tree; or (ii) the work is required due to unacceptable risk to public or private safety; or

4. The newly planted River Red Gums that are not performing well along the edge of the

creek line should be removed and replaced. 5. An aerial inspection of trees 32, 33, 47, 50 and 51 may be necessary to determine the

level of risk they pose. Alternatively, the zone beneath these trees can be managed to exclude targets without the need for an aerial inspection and subsequent pruning.

6. The risks associated with larger trees should be addressed by considering the following options:

a. Tree pruning as noted in the data. b. Tree removal. c. Target exclusion by mulching and underplanting of older trees. d. Relocation of paths, play equipment and other structures away from such trees.

ATTACHMENT A25



7. If these remnant trees are managed in any way, consideration must be given to the local fauna that occupy them. A survey and management plan for these animals should be considered. Suitable fauna management experts, such as FauNature should be consulted.

8. Consideration should be given to the development of a Master Plan for Mitcham Reserve to address the range of risk issues and species diversity issues identified in this report.

9. These trees should be assessed every 2-3 years.

If you have any further queries regarding the information contained in this report please feel free to contact me.

Michael Palamountain B.Sc., Dip. Hort. (Arboriculture) ISA Certified Arborist (AU007A) Member: ISA, Arboriculture Australia, SASA Tree Environs Pty Ltd.

(m) 0412 174 507 (e) [email protected]

ATTACHMENT A26

mailto:[email protected]



Endnotes i Tree and risk assessments can be conducted at different levels and may employ various methods and tools. The level of assessment applied should be appropriate for the circumstances.

Level 1 - Limited visual assessment.

• A visual assessment from a specified perspective, near specified targets. • The aim is to identify obvious defects or specified conditions. • Typically identifies trees with imminent or probable likelihood of failure. • This is the fastest and least thorough form of assessment intended for larger populations of

trees. • This can be carried out as a walkover, drive-by or fly-over inspection.

Level 2 - Standard assessment.

• A level 2 assessment is a detailed ground based visual tree inspection of a tree and its surroundings.

• The use of simple tools (mallet, binoculars, probes, spades), may be required. • In some instances only limited information may be gained on specific internal, below

ground or upper crown factors. • For the majority of tree assessments the standard assessment provides adequate

information to guide tree management. Level 3 - Advanced assessment.

• A level 3 assessment is performed to provide detailed information about specific tree parts, defects, targets or site conditions.

• This assessment is usually conducted after a standard assessment has undertaken if additional information is required and with the approval of the client.

• Specialised equipment is often required for advanced assessment. • The assessments are generally more time intensive and expensive. • Advanced assessment techniques may include; aerial inspection, detailed target analysis,

detailed site evaluation, decay testing, health evaluation, root inspection, tree stability monitoring and load testing.

NOTE: If tree condition cannot be adequately assessed at the specified level a higher level of assessment may be required.

ii A visual tree assessment (VTA) is an analytical process undertaken by a qualified Arborist or other suitably trained person to determine the structural soundness of a tree. Biological and mechanical components of trees are assessed, including tree health; presence of pests and diseases, die-back, foliage density and distribution, and vitality; growth rate, wound wood development and the trees capacity to respond to improved conditions. Mechanical components include trunk lean, crown bias, bark inclusions, wounds, hollowing, trunk bulges, ribs, cracks, branch form, failure history, pruning history, condition of trunk flare, and other existing defects. All these factors are examined to determine if internal weaknesses or abnormalities may be present. If abnormalities are detected, we may conduct further investigations using a range of tools. These include soft faced sounding mallets, long thin drill bits, Resistograph, Sonic Tomograph, Air spade and other tools as required. Ref: Mattheck. Claus & Breloer, Helga. The Body Language of Trees. A Handbook for Failure Analysis. Department of the Environment. London 1997.

ATTACHMENT A27



iiiRegulated tree means— (as defined in Section 4 Interpretation (1) of the Development (Regulated Trees) Amendment Act 2009)

(a) a tree, or a tree within a class of trees, declared to be regulated by the regulations (whether or not the tree also constitutes a significant tree under the regulations); or (b) a tree declared to be a significant tree, or a tree within a stand of trees declared to be significant trees, by a Development Plan (whether or not the tree is also declared to be a regulated tree, or also falls within a class of trees declared to be regulated trees, by the regulations); Section 6A—Regulated and significant trees (as defined in the Development (Regulated Trees)

Variation Regulations 2011)

(1) Subject to this regulation, the following are declared to constitute classes of regulated trees for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of regulated tree in section 4(1) of the Act, namely trees within the designated area under subregulation (3) that have a trunk with a circumference of 2 metres or more or, in the case of trees with multiple trunks, that have trunks with a total circumference of 2 metres or more and an average circumference of 625 millimetres or more, measured at a point 1 metre above natural ground level.

iv Significant tree means (as defined in Section 4 Interpretation (1) of the Development (Regulated Trees) Amendment Act 2009)

(a)a tree declared to be a significant tree, or a tree within a stand of trees declared to be significant trees, by a Development Plan (whether or not the tree is also declared to be a regulated tree, or also falls within a class of trees declared to be regulated trees, by the regulations); or

(b)a tree declared to be a regulated tree by the regulations, or a tree within a class of trees declared to be regulated trees by the regulations that, by virtue of the application of prescribed criteria, is to be taken to be a significant tree for the purposes of this Act;

6A—Regulated and significant trees (as defined in the Development (Regulated Trees) Variation Regulations 2011)

(1) Subject to this regulation, the following are declared to constitute classes of regulated trees for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the definition of regulated tree in section 4(1) of the Act, namely trees within the designated area under subregulation (3) that have a trunk with a circumference of 2 metres or more or, in the case of trees with multiple trunks, that have trunks with a total circumference of 2 metres or more and an average circumference of 625 millimetres or more, measured at a point 1 metre above natural ground level.

(2) Subject to this regulation— (a) a prescribed criterion for the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition of significant

tree in section 4(1) of the Act is that a regulated tree under subregulation (1) has a trunk with a circumference of 3 metres or more or, in the case of a tree with multiple trunks, has trunks with a total circumference of 3 metres or more and an average circumference of 625 millimetres or more, measured at a point 1 metre above natural ground level; and

(b) regulated trees under subregulation (1) that are within the prescribed criterion under paragraph (a) are to be taken to be significant trees for the purposes of the Act.

v Epicormic regrowth arises from dormant buds beneath the surface of the bark. These buds are stimulated to grow by heavy pruning, branch death, storm damage or stressful events such as plagues of defoliating insects, fire, mechanical wounding or poor growing conditions. They occur as a response by the tree to stress and are intended to rapidly provide renewed leaf area for photosynthesis and the production of carbohydrates. Epicormic shoot growth also occurs during the process of tree decline as limbs die or fail and crown size diminishes. The strength of attachment of epicormic stems is often less than that of normal limbs. Where epicormic growth occurs in response to lopping or storm damage, the competing stems prevent development of sound structural characteristics and may require specialized Arboricultural management over an extended period to improve tree form and minimise risk.

ATTACHMENT A28



vi Eucalypt Longicorn Beetle - Phoracantha spp., commonly known as Borers, are host specific beetles that feed on living or dead gum trees. The adult beetles have very long segmented antennae that are directed backwards over their elongated and cylindrical body. The larvae are white tapering grubs with large dark brown head with strong mandibles. The larvae bore mainly under the bark of the lower trunk feeding on the cambium layer. In severe attacks the trunk may be ring barked causing the death of the tree. They pupate inside the wood. When they hatch, the adults cut emergence oval shaped holes through the bark. Naturally, they may occur in small numbers in healthy trees. They can increase in numbers in trees that are stressed or unhealthy for a wide variety of reasons (incompatible with climate, poor pruning history, root disturbance, poisoning etc.). vii Co-dominant stems are stems or trunks of about the same size originating from the same position by division of the main stem. When the stem bark ridge turns upwards the union is strong and when the ridge turns inwards the union is potentially weak. viii Included Bark Crotches are potential structural weaknesses that occur in trees between the main stem and a branch or between leaders of equal size (co dominant stems). Bark between the stems turns downwards and prevents the interlocking of wood fibres rather than upwards to form a branch bark ridge as occurs in structurally sound crotches. This defect is under genetic control and may be repeated throughout the tree or occur in only one crotch. The position of an included bark crotch in a tree plays an important part in the trees structural stability. Low included bark crotches may be more serious than those higher in a tree. Depending upon the severity of the defect, tree age and species involved, it may be possible to prune or cable trees with bark inclusions in order to reduce the risk of failure. Bark inclusions that do not display signs of structural instability and or are in sheltered locations, are unlikely to be a safety issue and may not warrant Arboricultural intervention. ix Branching order describes the divisions between successively smaller branches in a tree. The main trunk is what emerges from the ground and is not considered a branch. First order branches (or primary branches) emerge from the main trunk and are the main scaffold branches of the tree. Second order branches (or secondary branches) emerge from these first order branches, followed by third order branches (tertiary branches) and so on. Successive branching is usually characterised by a reduction in branch diameter at each division. Draper, D and Richards, P. Dictionary for Managing Trees in Urban Environments CSIRO Publishing and Institute of Australian Consulting Arboriculturalists 2009. x Lopping or topping is the practice of cutting branches or stems between branch unions or internodes. This is an unacceptable practice for the following reasons.

a) Lopping increases the rate of shoot production and elongation. b) The resulting regrowth is weakly attached and becomes prone to failure or collapse. c) The stubs that remain may decay d) The natural habit of the tree is destroyed. e) Lopping may reduce the lifespan of the tree f) This type of pruning predisposes trees to fungal infections and insect attack.

Ref: AS 4373-2007 Pruning of amenity trees xi Taper in roots, stems and branches is the decrease in diameter along a given length. Adaptive growth describes the branch’s responses in the cambium to mechanical forces and gravitational effects so there is a uniform distribution of mechanical stresses. Taper develops as a consequence of a range of these forces and the distribution of lower order branches. A lack of taper along a stem or branch may increase the probability of failure. Lonsdale, D. Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, London 1999. xii Tree failures during ‘normal’ weather conditions (storms of similar strength occurring one to many times annually) are often predictable and preventable. However any tree, containing weaknesses or not, may fail if forces applied exceed the strength of the tree or its parts.

ATTACHMENT A29



xiii Reaction wood (or response growth) is a type of wood that is usually laid down in wider annual increments than ordinary wood, commonly in an asymmetric or elliptical shaped cross-section. In broad leaved trees a type of reaction wood known as tension wood develops. It has high tensile strength and resists elongation far more than ordinary wood. Tension wood develops along the tops of branches in response to gravity in most broad leaved species, as well as at the sides of vertical trunks and branches of broad leaved and coniferous trees in response to swaying movement or bending stress. Compression wood forms on the underside of branches in Coniferous trees and on the compression side of vertical trunks and branches in any tree in response to tree movement and stresses. Both ‘Tension’ and ‘Compression’ wood provide the tree with increased structural strength. The development of these tissues can also indicate structural instability when combined with defects, decay or wounding. Whether or not trees with such tissues are considered to indicate weakness or strength depends upon many factors, including species characteristics, tree form, growing conditions, growth rates and tree health generally.

• Mattheck. Claus & Breloer, Helga. The Body Language of Trees. A Handbook for Failure Analysis. Department of the Environment. London 1997.

• Debenham, C. The Language of Botany Society for Growing Australian Plants. • Shigo, Alex. Modern Arboriculture, a systems approach to the care of trees. Shigo and Trees,

Associates 1991. • Harris, R. Clark J. R. Matheny N. P. Arboriculture: Integrated management of landscape trees,

shrubs and vines. ISBN 0-13-044280-1 4th Edition 2004 Prentice Hall, Inc. xiv Prior evidence of limb or leader failure in the form of branch stubs, cracked limbs, limb failure scars or hanging limbs (history of failure) is a good indicator as to the future structural behaviour of a tree. Similarly the absence of these problems is a good sign as to the likely structural performance of a tree in the future. xv Likelihood of failure. The likelihood that a defective tree part will fail within the specified timeframe. (Tree Risk Assessment Manual – International Society of Arboriculture 2013, p122).

Improbable: The tree or branch is not likely to fail during normal weather conditions and may not fail in many severe weather conditions within the specified timeframe. Possible: Failure could occur, but it is unlikely during normal weather conditions within the specified timeframe. Probable: Failure may be expected under normal weather conditions within the specified timeframe. Imminent: Failure has started or is most likely to occur in the near future, even if there is no significant wind or increased load. This is an infrequent occurrence for a risk assessor to encounter and may require immediate action to protect people from harm.

xvi ISA Occupancy rates – The amount of time one or more targets are within the target zone. (Tree Risk Assessment Manual – International Society of Arboriculture 2013, pp 39-42)

Rare • Sites not commonly used by people. • Areas well away from actively used parts of sites.

Occasional • Infrequent or irregular use. Country roads, low use foot paths, low use sections of parks. • Seldom used areas, frequently used for short periods. Cemeteries, low use areas where special

events occur. Frequent • The target zone is occupied for a large portion of the day or week, e.g., suburban streets that

receive moderate volumes of traffic, car parks or facilities that are open during the daytime only, sidewalks in shopping areas, and busy delivery areas.

Constant

ATTACHMENT A30



• Targets are present at nearly all times, 24hrs/day, 7 days/week. Can include static immovable targets (buildings) or a steady stream of targets, moving through the target zone.

xvii Targets and likelihood of impact. The likelihood of a failed tree or tree part impacting a target of concern. (Tree Risk Assessment Manual – International Society of Arboriculture 2013, p42).

Very Low • The likelihood of the failed tree or part impacting the target is remote. • Rarely used sites fully exposed to the assessed tree, or occasionally used sites partially protected

by other trees or structures. • Examples include a rarely used trail in a rural area or occasionally used area that has some

protection against being struck by the tree failure. Low • It is not likely that the failed tree or part will impact the target. • This is the case in an occasionally used area that is fully exposed to the assessed tree, a frequently

used area that is partially exposed to the assessed tree or a constant target that is well protected from the assessed tree.

• Examples include a little-used service road next to the tree, or a frequently used public street that is protected by another tree.

Medium • The failed tree or part is as likely to impact the target as not. • This is the case in a frequently used area that is fully exposed on one side to the assessed tree, or a

constantly occupied area that is partially protected from the assessed tree. • Examples include a suburban street next to the assessed tree or a house that is partially protected

from the assessed tree by an intervening tree. High • The failed tree or part will most likely impact the target. • This is the case when a fixed target is fully exposed to the likely failure or the likely failure is over a

high-use road or walkway. xviii Road Traffic Data available at http://www.dptiapps.com.au/traffic-maps/flowmap_urban.pdf xix ISA Consequences of damage. The consequences of failures can be categorized using the following guidelines (Tree Risk Assessment Manual – International Society of Arboriculture 2013, pp 126-127) Negligible consequences are those that involve low-value property damage or disruption that can be replaced or repaired; they do not involve personal injury. Examples of negligible consequences include:

• A small branch striking a fence • A medium-sized branch striking a shrub bed • A large part striking a structure and causing low monetary damage • Disruption of power to landscape lighting

Minor consequences are those that involve low to moderate property damage, small disruptions to traffic or communication utility, or very minor injury. Examples of minor consequences include:

• A small branch striking a house roof from a high height • A medium sized branch striking a deck from a moderate height • A large part striking a structure and causing moderate monetary damage • Short-term disruption of power at a service drop to a house • Temporary disruption of traffic on a neighbourhood street

Significant consequences are those that involve property damage of a moderate to high value, considerable disruption, or personal injury. Examples of significant consequences include:

ATTACHMENT A31

http://www.dptiapps.com.au/traffic-maps/flowmap_urban.pdf



• A medium sized part striking an unoccupied new vehicle from a moderate or high height • A large part striking a structure resulting in high monetary damage • Disruption of distribution primary or secondary voltage power lines, including individual services and

street lighting circuits • Disruption of traffic on a secondary street

Severe consequences are those that could involve serious personal injury or death, damage to high value property, or disruption of important activities. Examples of severe consequences include:

• Injury to a person that may result in hospitalisation • A medium sized part striking an occupied vehicle • A large part striking an occupied house • Serious disruption of high voltage distribution and transmission power line • Disruption of arterial traffic or motorways

xx Levels of Risk. In the tree risk assessment matrix, four terms are used to define levels of risk: low, moderate, high and extreme. These risk ratings are used to communicate the level of risk and to assist in making recommendations to the owner or risk manager for mitigation and inspection frequency. The priority for action depends on the risk rating and risk tolerance of the owner or manager. Extreme: The extreme-risk category applies in situations where failure is imminent with a high likelihood of impact and the consequences of the failure are severe. The tree risk assessor should recommend that mitigation measures be taken as soon as possible. In some cases, this may mean immediate restriction of access to the target zone area to avoid injury to people. 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. This combination of likelihood and consequence indicates that the tree risk assessor should recommend mitigation measures be taken. The decision for mitigation and timing of treatment depends on the risk tolerance of the tree owner or risk manager. In populations of trees, the priority of high-risk trees is second only to extreme-risk trees. Moderate: Moderate-risk situations are those for which consequences are minor and likelihood is very likely or likely, or likelihood is somewhat likely and consequences are significant or severe. The tree risk assessor may recommend mitigation and/or retaining or monitoring. The decision for mitigation and timing for treatment depends on the risk tolerance of the tree owner or manager. In populations of trees, moderate-risk trees represent a lower priority than high- or extreme-risk trees. Low: The low-risk category applies when consequences are negligible, when likelihood is unlikely, or consequences are minor and likelihood is somewhat likely. Mitigation or maintenance measures may be appropriate for some trees, but the priority for action is low. Tree risk assessors may recommend retaining and monitoring these trees, as well as mitigation that does not include removal of the tree. Mitigation treatments may reduce risk or future risk, but the categorised risk rating is already at the lowest level. (Tree Risk Assessment Manual – International Society of Arboriculture 2013, p130). xxi City of Mitcham website http://www.mitchamcouncil.sa.gov.au/page.aspx?u=1259&c=9530 xxii Reaction wood (or response growth) is a type of wood that is usually laid down in wider annual increments than ordinary wood, commonly in an asymmetric or elliptical shaped cross-section. In broad leaved trees a type of reaction wood known as tension wood develops. It has high tensile strength and resists elongation far more than ordinary wood. Tension wood develops along the tops of branches in response to gravity in most broad leaved species, as well as at the sides of vertical trunks and branches of broad leaved and coniferous trees in response to swaying movement or bending stress. Compression wood forms on the underside of branches in Coniferous trees and on the compression side of vertical trunks and branches in any tree in response to tree movement and stresses. Both ‘Tension’ and ‘Compression’ wood

ATTACHMENT A32

http://www.mitchamcouncil.sa.gov.au/page.aspx?u=1259&c=9530



provide the tree with increased structural strength. The development of these tissues can also indicate structural instability when combined with defects, decay or wounding. Whether or not trees with such tissues are considered to indicate weakness or strength depends upon many factors, including species characteristics, tree form, growing conditions, growth rates and tree health generally.

• Mattheck. Claus & Breloer, Helga . The Body Language of Trees. A Handbook for Failure Analysis. Department of the Environment. London 1997.

• Debenham, C. The Language of Botany Society for Growing Australian Plants. • Shigo, Alex. Modern Arboriculture, a systems approach to the care of trees. Shigo and Trees,

Associates 1991. • Harris, R. Clark J. R. Matheny N. P. Arboriculture: Integrated management of landscape trees,

shrubs and vines. ISBN 0-13-044280-1 4th Edition 2004 Prentice Hall, Inc.

ATTACHMENT A33

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

1Ul

mus

pro

cera

Engl

ish

Elm

1.51

.

smal

l (<

10m

)60

-80

Aver

age

ep

icor

mic

s -

mod

erat

e,

Aver

age

singl

e tr

unk,

br

anch

failu

res -

re

gula

r,

co

mpa

ct c

row

n,

inte

rnal

dec

ay -

mod

erat

e,

cr

own

form

- irr

egul

ar,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

over

hang

ing

road

, ov

erha

ngin

g la

wn,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

pers

on,

car

- m

ovin

g,

Min

or

Lo

w20

-50

none

,

2Ul

mus

pro

cera

Engl

ish

Elm

1.76

. sm

all

(<10

m)

60-8

0Av

erag

e

epic

orm

ics -

m

oder

ate,

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

,

Good

sin

gle

trun

k,

broa

d sp

read

ing

crow

n,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

over

-ext

ende

d br

anch

to N

E,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

med

ium

,

Low

pers

on,

Se

vere

pers

on,

Low

20-5

0no

ne,

3Ul

mus

pro

cera

Engl

ish

Elm

1.6

smal

l (<

10m

)60

-80

Aver

age

ep

icor

mic

s -

mod

erat

e,

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

Aver

age

sin

gle

trun

k,

cr

own

form

- irr

egul

ar,

ov

er-e

xten

ded

bran

ches

,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

smal

l,

in

tern

al d

ecay

- m

oder

ate,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

pers

on,

Si

gnifi

cant

Low

20-5

0no

ne,

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

1 o

f 29

ATTACHMENT A34

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

4Ul

mus

pro

cera

Engl

ish

Elm

1.77

smal

l (<

10m

)60

-80

Aver

age

ep

icor

mic

s -

mod

erat

e,

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

Aver

age

sin

gle

trun

k,

crow

n fo

rm -

irreg

ular

,

bias

to E

,

pr

evio

usly

lopp

ed,

ov

er-e

xten

ded

bran

ches

,

prun

ing

hist

ory

- go

od,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

limite

d,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

med

ium

,

Med

ium

pers

on,

Si

gnifi

cant

pers

on,

Low

20-5

0re

duce

bra

nch

leve

rage

to N

ov

er p

ath

thro

ugh

redu

ctio

n pr

unin

g by

20-

30%

,

Med

ium

(w

ithin

2

year

s)

5Ul

mus

pro

cera

Engl

ish

Elm

1.83

smal

l (<

10m

)60

-80

Aver

age

epic

orm

ics -

m

oder

ate,

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

di

ebac

k -

min

or,

Good

singl

e tr

unk,

broa

d sp

read

ing

crow

n,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

limite

d,

prun

ing

hist

ory

- go

od,

in

tern

al d

ecay

- m

inor

,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

med

ium

,

Med

ium

pers

on,

Si

gnifi

cant

Low

20-5

0no

ne,

6Ul

mus

pro

cera

Engl

ish

Elm

1.66

smal

l (<

10m

)60

-80

Aver

age

epic

orm

ics -

m

oder

ate,

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

Aver

age

sin

gle

trun

k,

cr

own

form

- irr

egul

ar,

in

tern

al d

ecay

- m

inor

,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

limite

d,

pr

unin

g hi

stor

y -

good

,

over

hang

inh

seat

ing,

ov

erha

ngin

g la

wn,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

med

ium

,

Med

ium

pers

on,

Si

gnifi

cant

pers

on,

Low

20-5

0no

ne,

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

2 o

f 29

ATTACHMENT A35

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

7Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

6.07

.

signi

fican

t

larg

e (>

20m

)15

0+Go

od

fo

liage

de

nsity

- go

od,

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

bore

r act

ivity

- m

inor

,

Good

sin

gle

trun

k,

br

oad

spre

adin

g cr

own,

crow

n fo

rm -

sym

met

ric,

bird

che

win

g da

mag

e in

seve

ral

bran

ch u

nion

s and

on

E si

de o

f mai

n st

em ,

re

spon

se g

row

th

arou

nd b

ird

chew

ing-

goo

d,

seve

ral b

ranc

h fa

ilure

s in

rece

nt

year

s - sm

all,

seve

ral h

abita

t ho

llow

s - sm

all,

pr

unin

g hi

stor

y -

good

,

load

on

bird

ch

ewin

g de

fect

on

east

ern

stem

- m

ediu

m,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

med

ium

,

Med

ium

pers

on,

Se

vere

pers

on,

Low

100+

none

,

m

ulch

aro

und

tree

,

8Ul

mus

pa

rvifo

lia

Chin

ese

Elm

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

<10

Good

Aver

age

loos

e in

gro

und,

poor

root

ar

chite

ctur

e

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Impr

obab

le

M

ediu

m

pe

rson

,

Min

or

Lo

w<1

0pl

ant n

ew

tree

,

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

3 o

f 29

ATTACHMENT A36

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

9Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

1.12

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

10-2

0Go

od

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

,

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

Good

singl

e tr

unk,

bias

to N

W,

over

hang

ing

BBQ

, Po

ssib

le

live

br

anch

- sm

all,

Med

ium

pers

on,

M

inor

pers

on,

Low

100+

none

,

10Ul

mus

pa

rvifo

lia

Chin

ese

Elm

1.01

smal

l (<

10m

)10

-20

Good

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

Good

sin

gle

trun

k,

broa

d sp

read

ing

crow

n,

crow

n fo

rm -

sym

met

ric,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

low

bra

nche

s,

over

hang

ing

car p

ark,

ov

erha

ngin

g fo

otpa

th,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

car -

par

ked,

pe

rson

,

Min

or

Lo

w50

+lif

t ove

r car

pa

rk,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

11Ul

mus

pa

rvifo

lia

Chin

ese

Elm

1.11

smal

l (<

10m

)10

-20

Good

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

Good

sin

gle

trun

k,

broa

d sp

read

ing

crow

n,

crow

n fo

rm -

sym

met

ric,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

over

hang

ing

seat

ing,

ov

erha

ngin

g ca

r par

k,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

car -

par

ked,

pe

rson

,

Min

or

Lo

w50

+no

ne,

12Ul

mus

pa

rvifo

lia

Chin

ese

Elm

0.74

smal

l (<

10m

)10

-20

Good

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

Good

sin

gle

trun

k,

broa

d sp

read

ing

crow

n,

cr

own

form

- sy

mm

etric

,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

over

hang

ing

car p

ark,

ov

erha

ngin

g fo

otpa

th,

ov

erha

ngin

g la

wn,

ov

erha

ngin

g se

atin

g,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

car -

par

ked,

pe

rson

,

Min

or

Lo

w50

+no

ne,

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

4 o

f 29

ATTACHMENT A37

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

13Ul

mus

pa

rvifo

lia

Chin

ese

Elm

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

10-2

0Go

od

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

,

Good

singl

e tr

unk,

broa

d sp

read

ing

crow

n,

crow

n fo

rm -

sym

met

ric,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

over

hang

ing

seat

ing,

ov

erha

ngin

g la

wn,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

pers

on,

M

inor

Low

50+

none

,

14Ul

mus

pa

rvifo

lia

Chin

ese

Elm

1.24

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

10-2

0Go

od

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

,

Good

sin

gle

trun

k,

broa

d sp

read

ing

crow

n,

cr

own

form

- sy

mm

etric

,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

larg

e,

over

hang

ing

car p

ark,

ov

erha

ngin

g fo

otpa

th,

ov

erha

ngin

g la

wn,

ov

erha

ngin

g se

atin

g,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

car -

par

ked,

pe

rson

,

Min

or

Lo

w50

+no

ne,

15Ul

mus

pa

rvifo

lia

Chin

ese

Elm

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

10-2

0Go

od

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

,

Good

singl

e tr

unk,

bias

to N

,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

limite

d,

over

hang

ing

car p

ark,

ov

erha

ngin

g ro

ad,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

car -

mov

ing,

ca

r - p

arke

d,

pers

on,

Min

or

Lo

w50

+no

ne,

16Ul

mus

pa

rvifo

lia

Chin

ese

Elm

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

<10

Good

dead

br

anch

es -

maj

or,

Good

singl

e tr

unk,

broa

d sp

read

ing

crow

n,

cr

own

form

- sy

mm

etric

,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

pers

on,

M

inor

Low

50+

none

,

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

5 o

f 29

ATTACHMENT A38

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

17Ul

mus

pa

rvifo

lia

Chin

ese

Elm

1.17

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

10-2

0Go

od

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

,

Good

sin

gle

trun

k,

broa

d sp

read

ing

crow

n,

crow

n fo

rm -

sym

met

ric,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

over

hang

ing

car p

ark,

ov

erha

ngin

g fo

otpa

th,

ov

erha

ngin

g la

wn,

ov

erha

ngin

g se

atin

g,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

car -

par

ked,

pe

rson

,

Min

or

Lo

w50

+no

ne,

18Ul

mus

pa

rvifo

lia

Chin

ese

Elm

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

10-2

0Go

od

Go

od

singl

e tr

unk,

bias

to N

,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

over

hang

ing

car p

ark,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

car -

par

ked,

pe

rson

,

Min

or

Lo

w50

+no

ne,

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

6 o

f 29

ATTACHMENT A39

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

19Ul

mus

pro

cera

Engl

ish

Elm

4.08

. sig

nific

ant

la

rge

(>20

m)

80-1

00Av

erag

e

dieb

ack

- m

oder

ate,

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

ediu

m,

dead

br

anch

es -

larg

e,

ep

icor

mic

s -

mod

erat

e,

sh

ort l

ife

expe

ctan

cy,

Aver

age

singl

e tr

unk,

br

oad

spre

adin

g cr

own,

crow

n fo

rm -

irreg

ular

,

larg

e de

ad

bran

ches

,

br

anch

failu

res -

re

gula

r,

br

anch

failu

res -

la

rge,

inte

rnal

dec

ay a

t ba

se o

f tru

nk a

nd in

m

ain

bran

ches

- m

ajor

,

ov

er-e

xten

ded

bran

ches

,

bird

che

win

g da

mag

e,

num

erou

s hab

itat

hollo

ws,

resp

onse

gro

wth

- po

or,

load

on

defe

ct

(hol

low

at b

ase

of

tree

) - h

igh,

over

hang

ing

road

, ov

erha

ngin

g fo

otpa

th,

da

mag

e to

bu

ildin

g,

over

hang

ing

seat

ing,

ov

erha

ngin

g la

wn,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

larg

e,

Med

ium

car -

mov

ing,

pe

rson

,

Seve

re

pe

rson

,

Sign

ifica

nt

car,

Low

10-2

0re

duce

bra

nch

leve

rage

th

roug

h re

duct

ion

prun

ing

of

entir

e cr

own

by 1

0-30

%,

re

mov

e de

ad

bran

ches

ove

r 50

mm

in

diam

eter

th

roug

hout

th

e cr

own.

High

(w

ithin

6

mon

ths)

20Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

4.09

. exe

mpt

de

ad tr

ee

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

100+

Dead

Good

in

tern

al d

ecay

- m

inor

,

surr

ound

ed b

y el

m

suck

ers

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Impr

obab

le

w

hole

stem

Med

ium

car -

mov

ing,

pe

rson

,

Seve

re

Lo

wno

nere

mov

e or

thin

ou

t su

cker

s at

base

,

reta

in d

ead

trun

k

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

7 o

f 29

ATTACHMENT A40

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

21Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

2.29

. exe

mpt

de

ad tr

eem

ediu

m

(10-

20m

)10

0+De

ad

Go

od

singl

e tr

unk,

in

tern

al d

ecay

- m

inor

,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Impr

obab

le

w

hole

stem

Low

c

ar -

mov

ing,

pe

rson

,

Seve

re

Lo

wno

neno

ne,

22Ul

mus

pa

rvifo

lia

Chin

ese

Elm

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

<10

Good

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

Good

singl

e tr

unk,

cr

own

form

- sy

mm

etric

,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

limite

d,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Low

pers

on,

M

inor

Low

50+

none

,

23Ul

mus

pa

rvifo

lia

Chin

ese

Elm

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

<10

Good

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

Good

sin

gle

trun

k,

crow

n fo

rm -

sym

met

ric,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

pers

on,

M

inor

Low

50+

none

,

24Ul

mus

pa

rvifo

lia

Chin

ese

Elm

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

<10

Good

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

Good

sin

gle

trun

k,

cr

own

form

- sy

mm

etric

,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

pers

on,

M

inor

Low

50+

none

,

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

8 o

f 29

ATTACHMENT A41

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

25Ul

mus

pa

rvifo

lia

Chin

ese

Elm

1.36

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

10-2

0Go

od

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

,

Good

singl

e tr

unk,

broa

d sp

read

ing

crow

n,

cr

own

form

- sy

mm

etric

,

ba

rk in

clus

ion

bran

ch to

W o

ver

play

equ

ipm

ent-

m

inor

,

over

hang

ing

play

are

a,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

med

ium

,

High

p

lay

equi

pmen

t,

Med

ium

pers

on,

Min

or

pla

y eq

uipm

ent,

Se

vere

pers

on,

Low

50+

redu

ce b

ranc

h le

vera

ge o

f 2n

d or

der

bran

ch to

W

over

pla

y eq

uipm

ent

with

bar

k in

clus

ion

thro

ugh

redu

ctio

n pr

unin

g by

30

%,

Med

ium

(w

ithin

2

year

s)

26Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

<10

Poor

le

af p

ests

- m

ajor

,

sh

ort l

ife

expe

ctan

cy,

Poor

poor

root

ar

chite

ctur

e,

lo

ose

in g

roun

d,

trun

k w

ound

- m

oder

ate,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Impr

obab

le

w

hole

tree

Med

ium

pers

on,

Si

gnifi

cant

Lo

w<1

0pl

ant n

ew

tree

, Lo

w

(as f

unds

al

low

)

27Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

<10

Aver

age

shor

t life

ex

pect

ancy

,

Po

or

poor

root

ar

chite

ctur

e,

loos

e in

gro

und,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Impr

obab

le

w

hole

tree

Med

ium

pers

on,

M

inor

Low

<10

plan

t new

tr

ee,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

28Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

<10

Aver

age

leaf

pes

ts -

mod

erat

e,

sh

ort l

ife

expe

ctan

cy,

Poor

po

or ro

ot

arch

itect

ure,

lo

ose

in g

roun

d,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Impr

obab

le

w

hole

stem

Med

ium

pers

on,

M

inor

Low

<10

plan

t new

tr

ee,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

29Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

<10

Aver

age

leaf

pes

ts -

mod

erat

e,

sh

ort l

ife

expe

ctan

cy,

Poor

po

or ro

ot

arch

itect

ure,

lo

ose

in g

roun

d,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Impr

obab

le

w

hole

tree

Med

ium

pers

on,

M

inor

Low

<10

plan

t new

tr

ee,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

9 o

f 29

ATTACHMENT A42

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

30Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

<10

Aver

age

leaf

pes

ts -

mod

erat

e,

sh

ort l

ife

expe

ctan

cy,

Poor

po

or ro

ot

arch

itect

ure,

lo

ose

in g

roun

d,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Impr

obab

le

w

hole

tree

Med

ium

pers

on,

M

inor

Low

<10

plan

t new

tr

ee,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

31Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

<10

Aver

age

leaf

pes

ts -

mod

erat

e,

sh

ort l

ife

expe

ctan

cy,

Poor

po

or ro

ot

arch

itect

ure,

lo

ose

in g

roun

d,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Impr

obab

le

w

hole

tree

Med

ium

pers

on,

M

inor

low

<10

plan

t new

tr

ee,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

32Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

5.38

.

signi

fican

t

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

150+

Aver

age

sene

scen

t tr

ee

folia

ge

dens

ity -

aver

age,

se

ctio

ns o

f da

mag

ed

vasc

ular

tis

sue

at

grou

nd le

vel

and

alon

g m

ain

stem

s,

epic

orm

ics -

m

inor

,

activ

e be

e hi

ve

Aver

age

singl

e tr

unk,

lean

ing

trun

k -

min

or,

cr

own

form

- irr

egul

ar,

in

tern

al tr

unk

deca

y - m

inor

,

in

tern

al b

ranc

h de

cay

- mod

erat

e,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

very

larg

e,

bran

ch w

ound

s -

maj

or,

re

spon

se g

row

th -

mod

erat

e,

re

cent

bra

nch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

ha

bita

t hol

low

s la

rge,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

over

hang

ing

seat

ing,

unkn

own

live

br

anch

- la

rge,

Med

ium

pers

on,

Se

vere

unkn

own

50+

Aeria

l in

spec

tion

requ

ired,

pa

ssiv

e ex

clus

ion

zone

- m

ulch

and

un

derp

lant

,

High

(w

ithin

6

mon

ths)

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

10

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A43

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

33Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

4.42

. sig

nific

ant

la

rge

(>20

m)

150+

Good

folia

ge

dens

ity -

good

,

bore

r act

ivity

- m

inor

,

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

activ

e be

e hi

ves

Aver

age

sin

gle

trun

k,

crow

n fo

rm -

irreg

ular

,

seve

ral v

ery

larg

e br

anch

failu

res,

se

vera

l bra

nch

wou

nds -

m

oder

ate,

resp

onse

gro

wth

- m

oder

ate,

rece

nt b

ranc

h fa

ilure

s - li

mite

d,

la

rge

over

-ex

tend

ed b

ranc

h in

up

per c

row

n to

NE,

ov

erha

ngin

g la

wn,

ov

erha

ngin

g fo

otpa

th,

ov

erha

ngin

g pl

ay a

rea,

unkn

own.

live

br

anch

- la

rge,

Med

ium

pers

on,

Se

vere

pers

on,

Unk

now

n 50

+Ae

rial

insp

ectio

n re

quire

d,

pass

ive

excl

usio

n zo

ne

- mul

ch a

nd

unde

rpla

nt,

High

(w

ithin

6

mon

ths)

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

11

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A44

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

34Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

4.37

. sig

nific

ant

la

rge

(>20

m)

150+

Good

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

bore

r act

ivity

- m

inor

,

ep

icor

mic

s,

min

or,

Good

sin

gle

trun

k,

emer

gent

cro

wn

abov

e ne

ighb

ourin

g tr

ees,

thre

e ol

d lo

w la

rge

bran

ch fa

ilure

s,

rece

ntbr

anch

fa

ilure

s - li

mite

d,

over

-ext

ende

d br

anch

in m

id

crow

n to

N w

ith

aver

age

bran

ch

tape

r,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

over

hang

ing

play

are

a,

over

hang

ing

seat

ing,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

larg

e,

Med

ium

pers

on,

Se

vere

pers

on,

Low

100+

none

,

pass

ive

excl

usio

n zo

ne

- mul

ch a

nd

unde

rpla

nt,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

35Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

3.89

. exe

mpt

de

ad tr

ee

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

150+

Dead

Aver

age

inte

rnal

dec

ay -

mod

erat

e,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Impr

obab

le

w

hole

tree

Med

ium

pers

on,

Se

vere

pers

on,

Low

none

none

,

pass

ive

excl

usio

n zo

ne

- mul

ch a

nd

unde

rpla

nt,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

12

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A45

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

36Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

4.09

. sig

nific

ant

m

ediu

m

(10-

20m

)15

0+Go

od

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

,

bo

rer a

ctiv

ity -

min

or,

activ

e be

e hi

ve,

ep

icor

mic

s -

mod

erat

e,

Aver

age

singl

e tr

unk,

le

anin

g tr

unk

- m

oder

ate,

bias

to N

,

cr

own

form

- irr

egul

ar,

in

tern

al tr

unk

deca

y - m

inor

,

seve

ral l

arge

low

br

anch

es re

mov

ed

or fa

iled

in p

ast,

re

cent

bra

nch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

seve

ral s

mal

l to

med

ium

hab

itat

hollo

ws,

re

spon

se g

row

th -

mod

erat

e,

over

-ext

ende

d br

anch

es to

E,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

over

hang

ing

seat

ing,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

med

ium

,

Med

ium

pers

on,

Se

vere

pers

on,

Low

100+

none

,

pass

ive

excl

usio

n zo

ne

- mul

ch a

nd

unde

rpla

nt,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

13

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A46

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

37Po

pulu

s nig

ra

'Ital

ica'

Lom

bard

y Po

plar

2.68

. exe

mpt

sp

ecie

s la

rge

(>20

m)

60-8

0Go

od

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

oder

ate,

Av

erag

e

na

rrow

upr

ight

cr

own,

co

-dom

inan

t ste

ms,

bark

incl

usio

ns

mai

n st

ems -

min

or,

la

rge

dead

br

anch

es,

in

tern

al d

ecay

in

low

er tr

unk

- m

oder

ate,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

limite

d,

root

dam

age

- m

oder

ate,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

Poss

ible

dead

bra

nch

- m

ediu

m,

Med

ium

pers

on,

Si

gnifi

cant

Lo

w10

-20

rem

ove

dead

br

anch

es o

ver

40m

m d

ia.,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

38Fr

axin

us

'Ray

woo

d'

Cl

aret

Ash

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

10-2

0Go

od

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

,

Good

sin

gle

trun

k,

crow

n fo

rm -

sym

met

ric,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

limite

d,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

over

hang

ing

road

,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

car -

mov

ing,

Lo

w

pe

rson

,

Min

or

car

, pe

rson

, Lo

w50

+no

ne,

39Fr

axin

us

'Ray

woo

d'

Cl

aret

Ash

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

10-2

0Go

od

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

,

Good

singl

e tr

unk,

cr

own

form

- sy

mm

etric

,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

over

hang

ing

road

,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

car -

mov

ing,

Lo

w

pe

rson

,

Min

or

car

, pe

rson

, Lo

w50

+no

ne,

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

14

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A47

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

40Fr

axin

us

'Ray

woo

d'

Cl

aret

Ash

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

10-2

0Go

od

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

,

Good

singl

e tr

unk,

cr

own

form

- sy

mm

etric

,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

over

hang

ing

road

,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

car -

mov

ing,

Lo

w

pe

rson

,

Min

or

car

, pe

rson

, Lo

w50

+no

ne,

41Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

7.35

. sig

nific

ant

la

rge

(>20

m)

150+

Good

bo

rer a

ctiv

ity -

min

or,

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

,

folia

ge

dens

ity -

aver

age,

Av

erag

e

singl

e tr

unk,

le

anin

g tr

unk

- m

oder

ate,

bi

as to

W,

trun

k w

ound

s at

base

- m

oder

ate,

root

dam

age

- m

oder

ate,

in

tern

al d

ecay

at

base

- m

oder

ate,

re

spon

se g

row

th -

good

,

larg

e de

ad

bran

ches

- sh

orte

ned,

se

vera

l hab

itat

hollo

w o

f var

ying

siz

e,

resp

onse

gro

wth

- go

od,

rece

nt b

ranc

h fa

ilure

s - li

mite

d,

lo

ad o

n lo

wer

trun

k - h

igh,

over

hang

ing

road

(lea

ning

aw

ay),

ov

erha

ngin

g fo

otpa

th,

ov

erha

ngin

g la

wn,

Impr

obab

le

w

hole

tree

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

med

ium

,

Med

ium

car -

mov

ing,

pe

rson

,

Seve

re

Lo

w10

0+no

ne,

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

15

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A48

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

42Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

5.58

. sig

nific

ant

la

rge

(>20

m)

150+

Good

fo

liage

de

nsity

- av

erag

e,

bore

r act

ivity

- m

inor

,

dead

br

anch

es -

mod

erat

e,

po

ssum

gr

azin

g,

epic

orm

ics -

m

oder

ate,

Av

erag

e

sin

gle

trun

k,

broa

d sp

read

ing

crow

n,

cr

own

form

- irr

egul

ar,

two

old

larg

e br

anch

failu

res,

se

vera

l med

ium

br

anch

failu

res,

re

cent

bra

nch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

inte

rnal

trun

k de

cay

- min

or,

seve

ral

habi

tat

hollo

ws o

f var

ying

siz

e,

resp

onse

gro

wth

- m

oder

ate,

larg

e de

ad

bran

ches

,

lo

ad o

n de

fect

s (h

ollo

ws)

- low

- m

ediu

m,

ov

er-e

xten

ded

bran

ches

,

root

dam

age

- m

inor

,

over

hang

ing

road

, ov

erha

ngin

g fo

otpa

th,

ov

erha

ngin

g la

wn,

Impr

obab

le

w

hole

tree

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

med

ium

, Pr

obab

le

de

ad b

ranc

h -

med

ium

,

Med

ium

car -

mov

ing,

pe

rson

,

Seve

re

M

oder

ate

100+

rem

ove

dead

br

anch

es

<100

mm

dia

. ov

er ro

ad a

nd

foot

path

s,

sh

orte

n la

rger

de

ad b

ranc

hes

as re

quire

d

High

(w

ithin

6

mon

ths)

43Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

2.0-

3.0m

ex

empt

dea

d tr

ee

smal

l (<

10m

)15

0+De

ad

Go

od

inte

rnal

dec

ay -

mod

erat

e,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

Impr

obab

le

w

hole

tree

Med

ium

pers

on,

Se

vere

Low

none

none

,

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

16

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A49

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

44Sc

hinu

s are

ira

Pe

pper

corn

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

<10

Good

Good

Impr

obab

le

Lo

w

pe

rson

,

Min

or

Lo

w50

+no

ne,

45Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

1.71

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

10-2

0Go

od

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

bo

rer a

ctiv

ity -

min

or,

Aver

age

singl

e tr

unk,

crow

n fo

rm -

irreg

ular

,

over

-ext

ende

d br

anch

es,

over

hang

ing

road

, ov

erha

ngin

g fo

otpa

th,

ov

erha

ngin

g la

wn,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

car -

mov

ing,

M

inor

Low

50+

redu

ce b

ranc

h le

ngth

to S

W

over

road

th

roug

h re

duct

ion

prun

ing

by

40%

,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

46Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

1.71

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

10-2

0Go

od

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

bo

rer a

ctiv

ity -

min

or,

Aver

age

singl

e tr

unk,

crow

n fo

rm -

irreg

ular

,

bi

as to

SW

,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

limite

d,

over

hang

ing

road

, ov

erha

ngin

g la

wn,

Prob

able

live

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

car -

mov

ing,

M

inor

Low

50+

none

,

47Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

6.94

. exe

mpt

de

ad tr

ee

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

150+

Dead

activ

e be

ehiv

e

Aver

age

inte

rnal

dec

ay

low

er tr

unk-

min

or,

de

cay

in u

pper

cr

own

unkn

own,

se

vera

l lar

ge

habi

tat h

ollo

ws -

pr

evio

usly

sh

orte

ned.

cr

acks

in v

ario

us

bran

ches

over

hang

ing

car p

ark,

ov

erha

ngin

g fo

otpa

th,

ov

erha

ngin

g la

wn,

unkn

own.

M

ediu

m

ca

r - p

arke

d,

pers

on,

Seve

re

U

nkno

wn

none

aeria

l in

spec

tion

or

pull

test

re

quire

d,

pass

ive

excl

usio

n zo

ne

- mul

ch a

nd

unde

rpla

nt,

re

alig

n fo

otpa

th,

relo

cate

ha

ndic

ap

park

ing

bays

High

(w

ithin

6

mon

ths)

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

17

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A50

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

48Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

2.22

. re

gula

ted

m

ediu

m

(10-

20m

)20

-40

Good

bo

rer a

ctiv

ity -

min

or,

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

,

Good

sin

gle

trun

k,

narr

ow u

prig

ht

crow

n,

br

anch

tape

r -

aver

age,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

med

ium

Med

ium

pers

on,

Se

vere

Low

50+

none

,

49Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

1.88

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

20-4

0Go

od

bo

rer a

ctiv

ity -

min

or,

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

Good

sin

gle

trun

k,

narr

ow u

prig

ht

crow

n,

br

anch

tape

r -

aver

age,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

med

ium

,

Med

ium

pers

on,

Se

vere

Low

50+

none

,

50Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

4.60

ex

empt

de

ad tr

ee

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

150+

Dead

Aver

age

in

tern

al d

ecay

lo

wer

trun

k -

mod

erat

e,

in

tern

al d

ecay

mai

n br

anch

es u

nkno

wn,

seve

ral h

abita

t ho

llow

s,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

unkn

own.

M

ediu

m

pe

rson

,

Seve

re

U

nkno

wn

none

aeria

l in

spec

tion

or

pull

test

re

quire

d,

pass

ive

excl

usio

n zo

ne

- mul

ch a

nd

unde

rpla

nt,

re

alig

n fo

otpa

th,

High

(w

ithin

6

mon

ths)

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

18

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A51

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

51Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

6.21

sig

nific

ant

la

rge

(>20

m)

150+

Good

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

in

uppe

r cro

wn,

larg

e ho

llow

de

ad

bran

ches

in

mid

cro

wn,

bo

rer a

ctiv

ity -

min

or,

po

ssum

gr

azin

g

Aver

age

singl

e tr

unk,

broa

d sp

read

ing

crow

n,

cr

own

form

- irr

egul

ar,

se

vera

l old

larg

e br

anch

failu

res i

n lo

wer

cro

wn

and

seve

ral o

ld m

ediu

m

bran

ch fa

ilure

s in

mid

cro

wn,

re

cent

bra

nch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

la

rge

dead

br

anch

es

(sho

rten

ed fo

r ha

bita

t),

seve

ral s

mal

l and

la

rge

habi

tat

hollo

ws,

resp

onse

gro

wth

- m

oder

ate,

inte

rnal

dec

ay

low

er tr

unk-

min

or,

in

tern

al d

ecay

br

anch

es u

nkno

wn,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

over

hang

ing

seat

ing,

Impr

obab

le

w

hole

tree

unkn

own.

live

br

anch

- m

ediu

m,

Med

ium

pers

on,

Se

vere

Unk

now

n 10

0+Ae

rial

insp

ectio

n re

quire

d,

pass

ive

excl

usio

n zo

ne

- mul

ch a

nd

unde

rpla

nt,

High

(w

ithin

6

mon

ths)

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

19

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A52

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

52Pi

nus

hale

pens

is

Alep

po P

ine

3.66

. sig

nific

ant

la

rge

(>20

m)

80-1

00Go

od

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

,

Aver

age

singl

e tr

unk,

br

anch

es

conc

entr

ated

in

uppe

r thi

rd,

crow

n fo

rm -

sym

met

ric,

crow

n de

nsity

- de

nse,

six n

otab

le li

ve

bran

ch fa

ilure

s in

rece

nt y

ears

,

prun

ing

hist

ory

- go

od,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

over

hang

ing

play

are

a,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

larg

e,

Med

ium

pers

on,

Se

vere

Low

10-2

0no

ne,

pa

ssiv

e ex

clus

ion

zone

- m

ulch

and

un

derp

lant

,

53Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

5.61

. sig

nific

ant

la

rge

(>20

m)

150+

Good

bo

rer a

ctiv

ity -

min

or,

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

poss

um

graz

ing,

epic

orm

ics -

m

oder

ate,

Go

od

sin

gle

trun

k,

crow

n fo

rm -

irreg

ular

,

over

-ext

ende

d br

anch

es,

br

anch

tape

r -

aver

age,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

br

anch

failu

res -

la

rge,

prun

ing

hist

ory

- go

od,

over

hang

ing

road

, ov

erha

ngin

g fo

otpa

th,

ov

erha

ngin

g pl

ay a

rea,

ov

erha

ngin

g sc

hool

s san

dpit

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

med

ium

,

Low

c

ar -

mov

ing,

M

ediu

m

pe

rson

,

Min

or

car

, Se

vere

pers

on,

Low

100+

redu

ce b

ranc

h le

vera

ge to

no

rth

over

sc

hool

sand

pit

thro

ugh

redu

ctio

n pr

unin

g by

10-

20%

,

redu

ce b

ranc

h le

vera

ge to

SE

over

rese

rve

foot

path

th

roug

h re

duct

ion

prun

ing

by 2

0-30

%,

Med

ium

(w

ithin

2

year

s)

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

20

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A53

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

54Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

2.93

re

gula

ted

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

60-8

0Go

od

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

bore

r act

ivity

- m

inor

,

Aver

age

sin

gle

trun

k,

le

anin

g tr

unk

- m

ajor

,

prev

ious

ly re

duce

d,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

prun

ing

hist

ory

- go

od,

over

hang

ing

elm

tree

s in

sc

hool

yar

d ne

xt d

oor

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

med

ium

,

Low

pers

on,

pr

otec

tion

from

tree

s

Seve

re

Lo

w20

-50

none

,

55Ul

mus

pro

cera

Engl

ish

Elm

2.90

. re

gula

ted

m

ediu

m

(10-

20m

)60

-80

Good

dead

br

anch

es -

mod

erat

e,

elm

leaf

be

etle

Aver

age

singl

e tr

unk,

le

anin

g tr

unk

- m

oder

ate,

bias

to N

E,

broa

d sp

read

ing

crow

n,

crow

n de

nsity

- de

nse,

over

-ext

ende

d br

anch

es,

bran

ch fa

ilure

at

6m to

E,

seve

ral m

ediu

m

bran

ch fa

ilure

s,

in

tern

al tr

unk

deca

y - m

oder

ate,

over

hang

ing

cree

k,

ov

erha

ngin

g pl

ay a

rea,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

med

ium

,

Med

ium

pers

on,

Se

vere

Low

10-2

0re

mov

e de

ad

bran

ches

ove

r 40

mm

dia

.,

re

duce

bra

nch

leve

rage

th

roug

h re

duct

ion

prun

ing

by 1

0-15

%,

redu

ce fo

laig

e de

nsity

th

roug

h th

inni

ng b

y 10

-15

%

(max

imum

br

anch

size

60

mm

),

trun

k in

ject

ion

- ins

ectic

ide

not s

uita

ble

in

cree

k,

Med

ium

(w

ithin

2

year

s)

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

21

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A54

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

56Sa

lix

baby

loni

ca

W

illow

1.67

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

20-4

0Av

erag

e

di

ebac

k -

mod

erat

e,

fu

ngal

frui

ting

bodi

es,

shor

t life

ex

pect

ancy

,

Aver

age

singl

e tr

unk,

na

rrow

upr

ight

cr

own,

in

tern

al d

ecay

- m

oder

ate,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

regu

lar,

br

anch

failu

res -

m

ediu

m si

zed,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

over

hang

ing

cree

k,

Prob

able

live

bran

ch -

med

ium

,

Med

ium

pers

on,

Se

vere

Mod

erat

e<1

0re

mov

e tr

ee,

Med

ium

(w

ithin

2

year

s)

57Co

rym

bia

citrio

dora

Lem

on S

cent

ed

Gum

2.12

. re

gula

ted

m

ediu

m

(10-

20m

)40

-60

Good

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

Aver

age

singl

e tr

unk,

bias

to N

,

broa

d sp

read

ing

crow

n,

crow

n de

nsity

- sp

arse

,

br

anch

tape

r - p

oor,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

regu

lar (

5 no

tabl

e fa

ilure

s in

rece

nt

year

s),

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

med

ium

,

Med

ium

pers

on,

Se

vere

Low

20-5

0no

ne,

no su

itabl

e pr

unin

g op

tions

,

58Co

rym

bia

citrio

dora

Lem

on S

cent

ed

Gum

1.98

larg

e (>

20m

)20

-40

Aver

age

fo

liage

de

nsity

- av

erag

e,

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

Aver

age

singl

e tr

unk,

cr

own

dens

ity -

spar

se,

ov

er-e

xten

ded

bran

ches

,

bran

ch ta

per -

poo

r,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

over

hang

ing

seat

ing,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

med

ium

,

Med

ium

pers

on,

Se

vere

Low

20-5

0no

ne,

no su

itabl

e pr

unin

g op

tions

,

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

22

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A55

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

59Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

<10

Aver

age

leaf

pes

ts -

mod

erat

e,

sh

ort l

ife

expe

ctan

cy,

Poor

poor

root

ar

chite

ctur

e,

lo

ose

in g

roun

d,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Impr

obab

le

w

hole

tree

Med

ium

pers

on,

M

inor

Low

<10

plan

t new

tr

ee,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

60Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

<10

Aver

age

leaf

pes

ts -

mod

erat

e,

sh

ort l

ife

expe

ctan

cy,

Poor

poor

root

ar

chite

ctur

e,

lo

ose

in g

roun

d,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Impr

obab

le

w

hole

tree

Med

ium

pers

on,

M

inor

Low

<10

plan

t new

tr

ee,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

61Sa

lix

baby

loni

ca

W

illow

1.71

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

20-4

0Av

erag

e

dieb

ack

- m

oder

ate,

shor

t life

ex

pect

ancy

,

Av

erag

e

sin

gle

trun

k,

na

rrow

upr

ight

cr

own,

in

tern

al d

ecay

- m

inor

,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

regu

lar,

br

anch

failu

res -

m

ediu

m si

zed,

root

dam

age

- m

oder

ate,

over

hang

ing

cree

k,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Prob

able

live

bran

ch -

med

ium

,

Med

ium

pers

on,

Se

vere

Mod

erat

e<1

0re

mov

e tr

ee,

Med

ium

(w

ithin

2

year

s)

62Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

<10

Aver

age

leaf

pes

ts -

mod

erat

e,

sh

ort l

ife

expe

ctan

cy,

Poor

poor

root

ar

chite

ctur

e,

lo

ose

in g

roun

d,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Impr

obab

le

w

hole

tree

Med

ium

pers

on,

M

inor

Low

<10

plan

t new

tr

ee,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

23

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A56

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

63La

guna

ria

pate

rson

ia

N

orfo

lk Is

land

Hi

bisc

us

2.61

. exe

mpt

sp

ecie

s m

ediu

m

(10-

20m

)40

-60

Good

irrita

ting

hairs

no

t sui

tabl

e ne

ar p

lay

equi

pmen

t

Good

crow

n fo

rm -

sym

met

ric,

crow

n de

nsity

- de

nse,

over

hang

ing

play

are

a,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

pers

on,

M

inor

Low

20-5

0re

mov

e tr

ee,

irrita

ting

hairs

no

t sui

tabl

e ne

ar p

lay

equi

pmen

t

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

64Fi

cus s

p.

Fig

Tree

2.58

. exe

mpt

sp

ecie

s m

ediu

m

(10-

20m

)60

-80

Poor

folia

ge

dens

ity -

thin

ning

,

poss

um

graz

ing

di

ebac

k -

mod

erat

e,

shor

t life

ex

pect

ancy

,

Go

od

singl

e tr

unk,

br

oad

spre

adin

g cr

own,

cr

own

form

- sy

mm

etric

,

crow

n de

nsity

- sp

arse

,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

limite

d,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

pers

on,

M

inor

Low

10-2

0no

ne,

65Sc

hinu

s are

ira

Pe

pper

corn

1.0-

2.0m

sm

all

(<10

m)

20-4

0Av

erag

e

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

oder

ate

Aver

age

mul

ti-st

emm

ed,

crow

n fo

rm -

irreg

ular

,

st

unte

d cr

own,

in

tern

al d

ecay

- m

oder

ate,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l, d

ead

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Low

pers

on,

M

inor

Low

20-5

0no

ne,

66O

lea

euro

paea

Oliv

e1.

0-2.

0m

mul

ti-st

emm

ed,

smal

l (<

10m

)40

-60

Aver

age

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

oder

ate,

so

il le

vels

raise

d,

Aver

age

cr

own

form

- irr

egul

ar,

over

hang

ing

car p

ark,

ov

erha

ngin

g la

wn,

Poss

ible

dead

bra

nch

- sm

all,

Med

ium

car -

par

ked,

pe

rson

,

Min

or

Lo

w20

-50

none

,

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

24

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A57

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

67O

lea

euro

paea

Oliv

e1.

0-2.

0m

mul

ti-st

emm

ed,

smal

l (<

10m

)40

-60

Aver

age

dead

br

anch

es -

mod

erat

e,

soil

leve

ls ra

ised,

Aver

age

cr

own

form

- irr

egul

ar,

over

hang

ing

car p

ark,

ov

erha

ngin

g la

wn,

Poss

ible

dead

bra

nch

- sm

all,

Med

ium

car -

par

ked,

pe

rson

,

Min

or

Lo

w20

-50

none

,

68Sc

hinu

s are

ira

Pe

pper

corn

3.09

. exe

mpt

sp

ecie

s m

ediu

m

(10-

20m

)20

-40

Aver

age

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

oder

ate

folia

ge

dens

ity -

aver

age,

Av

erag

e

cr

own

form

- irr

egul

ar,

inte

rnal

dec

ay -

mod

erat

e,

larg

e de

ad

bran

ches

,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

over

hang

ing

car p

ark,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l, d

ead

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Low

pers

on,

M

ediu

m

ca

r - p

arke

d,

Min

or

Lo

w20

-50

none

,

69Sc

hinu

s are

ira

Pe

pper

corn

2.26

. ex

empt

sp

ecie

s

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

20-4

0Av

erag

e

dead

br

anch

es -

mod

erat

e

folia

ge

dens

ity -

aver

age,

Av

erag

e

cr

own

form

- irr

egul

ar,

inte

rnal

dec

ay -

mod

erat

e,

la

rge

dead

br

anch

es,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

over

hang

ing

car p

ark,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l, d

ead

bran

ch -

med

ium

Low

pers

on,

M

ediu

m

ca

r - p

arke

d,

Min

or

Lo

w20

-50

rem

ove

dead

br

anch

es o

ver

40m

m d

ia.,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

70Sc

hinu

s are

ira

Pe

pper

corn

1.28

smal

l (<

10m

)20

-40

Aver

age

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

oder

ate

fo

liage

de

nsity

- av

erag

e,

Aver

age

crow

n fo

rm -

irreg

ular

,

in

tern

al d

ecay

- m

oder

ate,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

over

hang

ing

car p

ark,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l, d

ead

bran

ch -

smal

l

Low

pers

on,

M

ediu

m

ca

r - p

arke

d,

Min

or

Lo

w20

-50

none

,

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

25

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A58

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

71Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

3.36

. sig

nific

ant

m

ediu

m

(10-

20m

)40

-60

Aver

age

folia

ge

dens

ity -

aver

age,

poss

um

graz

ing,

dead

br

anch

es -

mod

erat

e,

dead

br

anch

es -

smal

l,

bo

rer a

ctiv

ity -

min

or,

Aver

age

singl

e tr

unk,

broa

d sp

read

ing

crow

n,

cr

own

form

- irr

egul

ar,

bias

to S

E,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

limite

d,

over

hang

ing

play

are

a,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l, d

ead

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Low

pers

on,

M

inor

Low

50+

none

,

72Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

2.43

. re

gula

ted

m

ediu

m

(10-

20m

)40

-60

Good

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

bo

rer a

ctiv

ity -

min

or,

Good

sin

gle

trun

k,

br

oad

spre

adin

g cr

own,

crow

n fo

rm -

irreg

ular

,

la

rge

dead

br

anch

es,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

limite

d,

over

hang

ing

play

are

a,

over

hang

ing

road

, ov

erha

ngin

g la

wn,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l, d

ead

bran

ch -

larg

e,

Low

pers

on,

car

- m

ovin

g,

Min

or

Lo

w50

+re

mov

e de

ad

bran

ches

ove

r 40

mm

dia

.,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

73Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

1.81

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

20-4

0Go

od

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

,

bore

r act

ivity

- m

inor

,

Poor

singl

e tr

unk,

lean

ing

trun

k -

maj

or,

lim

ited

grow

ing

spac

e,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

over

hang

ing

road

, ov

erha

ngin

g la

wn,

ob

scur

ing

light

s,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

med

ium

,

Low

c

ar -

mov

ing,

pe

rson

,

Seve

re

pe

rson

, Si

gnifi

cant

ca

r,

Low

10-2

0re

mov

e tr

ee,

limite

d fu

ture

Lo

w

(as f

unds

al

low

)

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

26

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A59

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

74Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

3.67

. sig

nific

ant

la

rge

(>20

m)

60-8

0Go

od

bore

r act

ivity

- m

inor

,

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

,

Good

singl

e tr

unk,

em

erge

nt c

row

n,

br

oad

spre

adin

g cr

own,

crow

n fo

rm -

sym

met

ric,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

limite

d,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

med

ium

,

Low

pers

on,

Se

vere

Low

100+

none

,

75Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

10-2

0Po

or

folia

ge

dens

ity -

thin

ning

,

po

ssum

gr

azin

g

di

ebac

k -

mod

erat

e,

shor

t life

ex

pect

ancy

,

Av

erag

e

singl

e tr

unk,

cr

own

form

- irr

egul

ar,

st

unte

d cr

own,

limite

d gr

owin

g sp

ace,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

limite

d,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Poss

ible

dead

bra

nch

- sm

all,

Low

pers

on,

M

inor

Low

<10

rem

ove

tree

,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

76Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

2.58

. re

gula

ted

m

ediu

m

(10-

20m

)40

-60

Aver

age

folia

ge

dens

ity -

aver

age,

ep

icor

mic

s -

mod

erat

e,

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

,

Aver

age

sin

gle

trun

k,

broa

d sp

read

ing

crow

n,

crow

n fo

rm -

irreg

ular

,

ov

er-e

xten

ded

bran

ches

,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

limite

d,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Low

pers

on,

M

inor

Low

50+

none

,

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

27

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A60

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

77Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

1.82

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

20-4

0Go

od

bore

r act

ivity

- m

inor

,

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

Aver

age

singl

e tr

unk,

lean

ing

trun

k -

mod

erat

e,

limite

d gr

owin

g sp

ace,

br

anch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

over

hang

ing

road

,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

med

ium

,

Low

c

ar -

mov

ing,

pe

rson

,

Seve

re

pe

rson

, Si

gnifi

cant

ca

r,

Low

20-5

0re

duce

ove

rall

crow

n le

vera

ge

thro

ugh

redu

ctio

n pr

unin

g by

30-

40%

,

Med

ium

(w

ithin

2

year

s)

78Sc

hinu

s are

ira

Pe

pper

corn

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

<10

Good

Aver

age

loos

e in

gro

und,

Lo

w10

-20

none

,

79Sc

hinu

s are

ira

Pe

pper

corn

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

10-2

0Go

od

Go

od

ov

erha

ngin

g ro

ad,

over

hang

ing

foot

path

,

over

hang

ing

law

n,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

pers

on,

M

inor

Low

50+

none

,

80Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Ri

ver R

ed G

um

se

vera

l you

ng

sapl

ings

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

<10

varie

s.

so

me

with

le

af p

ests

- m

oder

ate,

Av

erag

e

so

me

loos

e in

gr

ound

,

plan

ted

too

clos

e to

geth

er,

Low

10-2

0th

in o

ut tr

ees.

1 fe

atur

e is

tree

bet

ter

than

a g

roup

of

infe

rior

tree

s.

High

(w

ithin

6

mon

ths)

81Sc

hinu

s are

ira

Pe

pper

corn

2.0-

3.0m

m

ulti-

stem

med

,

exem

pt

smal

l (<

10m

)20

-40

Good

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

Aver

age

mul

ti-st

emm

ed,

cr

own

form

- irr

egul

ar,

lo

w b

ranc

hes,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

limite

d,

over

hang

ing

car p

ark,

ob

scur

ing

signs

,

Poss

ible

li

ve

bran

ch -

smal

l,

Med

ium

car -

par

ked,

M

inor

Low

50+

clea

r sig

ns,

lift o

ver c

ar

park

,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

28

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A61

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Surr

ound

sL

of fa

ilure

L of

impa

ctCo

nse

quen

ces

Risk

Life

ex

pect

.M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Prio

rity

82Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

1.68

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

20-4

0Go

od

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

bore

r act

ivity

- m

inor

,

po

ssum

gr

azin

g

Good

sin

gle

trun

k,

narr

ow u

prig

ht

crow

n,

co

-dom

inan

t ste

ms,

ba

rk in

clus

ions

m

ain

stem

s - m

inor

,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

limite

d,

over

hang

ing

car p

ark,

Po

ssib

le

live

br

anch

- sm

all,

Med

ium

car -

par

ked,

M

inor

Low

50+

none

,

83Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

<10

Dead

Aver

age

over

hang

ing

car p

ark,

ov

erha

ngin

g ro

ad,

Impr

obab

le

w

hole

tree

Med

ium

car -

par

ked,

ca

r - m

ovin

g,

Seve

re

m

ovin

g ca

r,

Low

none

rem

ove

tree

,

M

ediu

m

(with

in 2

ye

ars)

84Sc

hinu

s are

ira

Pe

pper

corn

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

60-8

0Go

od

Go

od

broa

d sp

read

ing

crow

n,

bran

ch fa

ilure

s -

limite

d,

over

hang

ing

car p

ark,

Po

ssib

le

live

br

anch

- sm

all,

Med

ium

car -

par

ked,

M

inor

Low

20-5

0no

ne,

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5by

Tre

e En

viro

ns

page

29

of 2

9

ATTACHMENT A62

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

–Tr

eeA

udit

–Si

tePl

anw

ithTr

eeN

umbe

rs–

Sept

embe

r201

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

131211

109

8

7

1415

16 1718

19

2021

22

23

2425

26

272829

30

31

32

33

3435

36

37

3839

40

4142

43

44 50

4546

47

4849 51

52

5354

555657

585960

62

61

6364

6566

67

6869

70

7178

77

7675

74

7372

79

80

8182

8384

ATTACHMENT A63

14 December 2016 Chris Tozer Horticultural Officer – Trees City of Mitcham PO Box 21 Mitcham Shopping Centre Torrens Park SA 5062 Review of tree management recommendations at Mitcham Reserve I carried out an original survey of 84 trees within Mitcham Reserve in August 2015 following a request from Chris Tozer, Horticultural Officer – Trees with the City of Mitcham. I was requested to carry out an audit of all trees to determine, condition, risk and life expectancy in order to determine maintenance requirements to maintain tree health and acceptable levels of risk at the site. My results and recommendations were presented to Council in my report dated 10th September 2015. Some 15 months have elapsed since I prepared this original report. I have subsequently been requested to walk over the site with Chris Tozer to inspect the trees with a high priority for works (as recommended in the report of September 2015) and to review the recommendations of that previous report. This report reviews the recommendations of 13 trees, most of which required high priority action (within the 6 months from September 2015). I have also provided some commentary on a small number of medium and low priority trees where relevant. My tree observations and reviewed actions are outlined in the tree data table attached at the end of the report. The key review recommendations can be summarised in the following points:

• Much of the high priority works which were recommended to take place within 6 months of the tree audit (of September 2015) has not occurred. It is recommended that the high priority works now be undertaken as soon as practicable.

• The pruning of trees 19 (English Elm) and 42 (River Red Gum) should occur as soon as practicable. Consideration could be given to the removal of tree 19 due to its declining health, hollowing structure and limited life expectancy.

• While some remedial measures have occurred for dead trees 47 and 50 (both River Red Gums), there are still concerns that the trees remain unstable with evidence of enlarging cracks and increasing instability. Additional aerial inspection and testing is recommended to determine whether more pruning and/or tree removal should occur.

ATTACHMENT B1

Review of tree management recommendations at Mitcham Reserve

Page 2 of 3 Managing trees in the urban landscape

• Trees 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 51 are all veteran River Red Gums with a history of branch failure, some with an unknown level of risk. It was recommended that all trees have a passive exclusion zone established around them with mulching and underplanting to improve tree health and manage the target zone. Some of these trees were recommended to have an aerial inspection carried out to determine tree stability which could provide a more accurate risk rating.

o The recommended works have not been carried out on high priority trees 32, 33, or 51 within the recommended time frame.

o The recommended works have not been carried out on low priority trees 34, 35 or 26 however; the recommended time frame has not yet elapsed.

o Aerial inspections to undertake various diagnostic tests on these trees to determine tree integrity requires extensive and sometimes invasive testing.

o This testing would be expensive - $5,000+ per tree. Testing equipment may include, but is not limited to Elevated Work Platforms, pedestrian control, Resistograph drilling equipment, Sonic Tomography Equipment, qualified arborists to carry out the testing and prepare reports.

o Drill testing of trees causes unnecessary wounding and should only be carried out where no alternative exists. I believe drill testing of these trees is unjustified.

o Elevated levels of risk identified after this additional testing are likely to result in the same management recommendations, i.e. mulching to improve tree health and life expectancy, and to manage the target areas. I am not likely to recommend such veteran trees have any pruning work carried out on them. Pruning is likely to increase the rate of tree decline.

o I maintain my current recommendation to mulch out to beyond the canopy of each of these trees as indicated in the Landscape Master Plan prepare by Martin Ely of Tree Environs. I do not support the notion of ‘not mulching’ or ‘reduced mulch areas’.

• The management of tree 52 (Aleppo Pine) is not due to have taken place until September 2017. As this timeframe is coming up, a decision should be made about the future and management of this tree.

• The preservation of veteran trees should form the highest priority for urban tree managers. Short term decision making which adversely affects the future of these trees will be poorly regarded by the local community and future generations, especially when sound arboricultural practices have been recommended.

• Mulching is a cost effective tool in managing tree health by providing the necessary organic matter and nutrients to improve soil health which in turn improves tree health and life expectancy. It is far more cost effective with better outcomes than extensive and invasive tree testing and pruning.

• Failure to mulch the root zone is likely to lead to an increase in the rate of tree decline, branch failure patterns and premature tree death/removal.

• In the event of a branch failure incident affecting a member of the public, there will be increased pressures on removing the subject tree/s. This would be very unfortunate, given reasonable remedial measures are available.

ATTACHMENT B2

Review of tree management recommendations at Mitcham Reserve

Page 3 of 3 Managing trees in the urban landscape

If you have any further queries regarding issues raised in this report please feel free to contact me. Yours sincerely

Michael Palamountain B.Sc., Dip. Hort. (Arboriculture) ISA Certified Arborist (AU007A) Member: ISA, Arboriculture Australia, SASA Tree Environs Pty Ltd.

(m) 0412 174 507 (e) [email protected]

ATTACHMENT B3

mailto:[email protected]

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Risk

Life

ex

pect

. M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Revi

sed

Prio

rity

Revi

ew c

omm

ents

Dec

embe

r 201

6

19Ul

mus

pro

cera

Engl

ish

Elm

4.08

. sig

nific

ant

la

rge

(>20

m)

80-1

00Av

erag

e

dieb

ack

- m

oder

ate,

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

ediu

m,

dead

br

anch

es -

larg

e,

ep

icor

mic

s -

mod

erat

e,

sh

ort l

ife

expe

ctan

cy,

Aver

age

singl

e tr

unk,

br

oad

spre

adin

g cr

own,

crow

n fo

rm -

irreg

ular

,

larg

e de

ad

bran

ches

,

br

anch

failu

res -

re

gula

r,

br

anch

failu

res -

la

rge,

inte

rnal

dec

ay a

t ba

se o

f tru

nk a

nd in

m

ain

bran

ches

- m

ajor

,

ov

er-e

xten

ded

bran

ches

,

bird

che

win

g da

mag

e,

num

erou

s hab

itat

hollo

ws,

resp

onse

gro

wth

- po

or,

load

on

defe

ct

(hol

low

at b

ase

of

tree

) - h

igh,

Low

(incr

easin

g)10

-20

redu

ce b

ranc

h le

vera

ge

thro

ugh

redu

ctio

n pr

unin

g of

en

tire

crow

n by

10-

30%

,

rem

ove

dead

br

anch

es o

ver

50m

m in

di

amet

er

thro

ugho

ut

the

crow

n.

ASAP

Prun

ing

wor

ks h

ave

not o

ccur

red

with

in

reco

mm

ende

d tim

e fr

ame.

Und

erta

ke

prun

ing

as so

on a

s pra

ctic

able

.

Co

nsid

er tr

ee re

mov

al d

ue to

the

limite

d us

eful

life

exp

ecta

ncy

of th

e tr

ee.

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5Re

view

ed 2

nd D

ecem

ber 2

016

by T

ree

Envi

rons

pa

ge 1

of 9

ATTACHMENT B4

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Risk

Life

ex

pect

. M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Revi

sed

Prio

rity

Revi

ew c

omm

ents

Dec

embe

r 201

6

32Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

5.38

.

signi

fican

t m

ediu

m

(10-

20m

)15

0+Av

erag

e

se

nesc

ent

tree

fo

liage

de

nsity

- av

erag

e,

sect

ions

of

dam

aged

va

scul

ar

tissu

e at

gr

ound

leve

l an

d al

ong

mai

n st

ems,

ep

icor

mic

s -

min

or,

ac

tive

bee

hive

Aver

age

singl

e tr

unk,

lean

ing

trun

k -

min

or,

cr

own

form

- irr

egul

ar,

in

tern

al tr

unk

deca

y at

gro

und

levb

el -

min

or,

inte

rnal

bra

nch

deca

y - m

oder

ate,

br

anch

failu

res -

ve

ry la

rge,

br

anch

wou

nds -

m

ajor

,

resp

onse

gro

wth

- m

oder

ate,

rece

nt b

ranc

h fa

ilure

s - li

mite

d,

habi

tat h

ollo

ws

larg

e,

unkn

own

50+

mul

ch a

nd

unde

rpla

nt,

ASAP

No

actio

n ha

s occ

urre

d w

ithin

re

com

men

ded

time

fram

e.

Relo

cate

ben

ch se

at.

Mul

ch a

nd u

nder

plan

t to

impr

ove

tree

he

alth

and

man

age

targ

et zo

ne.

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5Re

view

ed 2

nd D

ecem

ber 2

016

by T

ree

Envi

rons

pa

ge 2

of 9

ATTACHMENT B5

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Risk

Life

ex

pect

. M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Revi

sed

Prio

rity

Revi

ew c

omm

ents

Dec

embe

r 201

6

33Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

4.42

. sig

nific

ant

la

rge

(>20

m)

150+

Good

folia

ge

dens

ity -

good

,

bore

r act

ivity

- m

inor

,

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

activ

e be

e hi

ves

Aver

age

sin

gle

trun

k,

crow

n fo

rm -

irreg

ular

,

seve

ral v

ery

larg

e br

anch

failu

res,

se

vera

l bra

nch

wou

nds -

m

oder

ate,

resp

onse

gro

wth

- m

oder

ate,

rece

nt b

ranc

h fa

ilure

s - li

mite

d,

la

rge

over

-ex

tend

ed b

ranc

h in

up

per c

row

n to

NE,

Unk

now

n 50

+m

ulch

and

un

derp

lant

, AS

APN

o ac

tion

has o

ccur

red

with

in

reco

mm

ende

d tim

e fr

ame.

Mul

ch a

nd u

nder

plan

t to

impr

ove

tree

he

alth

and

man

age

targ

et zo

ne.

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5Re

view

ed 2

nd D

ecem

ber 2

016

by T

ree

Envi

rons

pa

ge 3

of 9

ATTACHMENT B6

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Risk

Life

ex

pect

. M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Revi

sed

Prio

rity

Revi

ew c

omm

ents

Dec

embe

r 201

6

34Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

4.37

. sig

nific

ant

la

rge

(>20

m)

150+

Good

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

bore

r act

ivity

- m

inor

,

ep

icor

mic

s,

min

or,

Good

sin

gle

trun

k,

emer

gent

cro

wn

abov

e ne

ighb

ourin

g tr

ees,

thre

e ol

d lo

w la

rge

bran

ch fa

ilure

s,

rece

ntbr

anch

fa

ilure

s - li

mite

d,

over

-ext

ende

d br

anch

in m

id

crow

n to

N w

ith

aver

age

bran

ch

tape

r,

Low

100+

mul

ch a

nd

unde

rpla

nt,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

Prio

rity

for a

ctio

n re

mai

ns lo

w.

M

ulch

ing

and

unde

rpla

ntin

g st

ill

reco

mm

ende

d to

impr

ove

tree

hea

lth

and

man

age

targ

et zo

ne.

35Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

3.89

. ex

empt

de

ad tr

ee

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

150+

Dead

Aver

age

inte

rnal

dec

ay -

mod

erat

e,

Low

none

mul

ch a

nd

unde

rpla

nt,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

Prio

rity

for a

ctio

n re

mai

ns lo

w.

M

ulch

ing

and

unde

rpla

ntin

g st

ill

reco

mm

ende

d to

impr

ove

tree

hea

lth

and

man

age

targ

et zo

ne.

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5Re

view

ed 2

nd D

ecem

ber 2

016

by T

ree

Envi

rons

pa

ge 4

of 9

ATTACHMENT B7

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Risk

Life

ex

pect

. M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Revi

sed

Prio

rity

Revi

ew c

omm

ents

Dec

embe

r 201

6

36Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

4.09

. sig

nific

ant

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

150+

Good

dead

br

anch

es -

min

or,

bore

r act

ivity

- m

inor

,

ac

tive

bee

hive

,

epic

orm

ics -

m

oder

ate,

Av

erag

e

sin

gle

trun

k,

lean

ing

trun

k -

mod

erat

e,

bi

as to

N,

crow

n fo

rm -

irreg

ular

,

inte

rnal

trun

k de

cay

- min

or,

se

vera

l lar

ge lo

w

bran

ches

rem

oved

or

faile

d in

pas

t,

rece

nt b

ranc

h fa

ilure

s - li

mite

d,

se

vera

l sm

all t

o m

ediu

m h

abita

t ho

llow

s,

resp

onse

gro

wth

- m

oder

ate,

ov

er-e

xten

ded

bran

ches

to E

,

Low

100+

mul

ch a

nd

unde

rpla

nt,

Low

(a

s fun

ds

allo

w)

Prio

rity

for a

ctio

n re

mai

ns lo

w.

M

ulch

ing

and

unde

rpla

ntin

g st

ill

reco

mm

ende

d to

impr

ove

tree

hea

lth

and

man

age

targ

et zo

ne.

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5Re

view

ed 2

nd D

ecem

ber 2

016

by T

ree

Envi

rons

pa

ge 5

of 9

ATTACHMENT B8

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Risk

Life

ex

pect

. M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Revi

sed

Prio

rity

Revi

ew c

omm

ents

Dec

embe

r 201

6

42Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

5.58

. sig

nific

ant

la

rge

(>20

m)

150+

Good

fo

liage

de

nsity

- av

erag

e,

bore

r act

ivity

- m

inor

,

dead

br

anch

es -

mod

erat

e,

po

ssum

gr

azin

g,

epic

orm

ics -

m

oder

ate,

Av

erag

e

sin

gle

trun

k,

broa

d sp

read

ing

crow

n,

cr

own

form

- irr

egul

ar,

two

old

larg

e br

anch

failu

res,

se

vera

l med

ium

br

anch

failu

res,

re

cent

bra

nch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

inte

rnal

trun

k de

cay

- min

or,

seve

ral

habi

tat

hollo

ws o

f var

ying

siz

e,

resp

onse

gro

wth

- m

oder

ate,

larg

e de

ad

bran

ches

,

lo

ad o

n de

fect

s (h

ollo

ws)

- low

- m

ediu

m,

ov

er-e

xten

ded

bran

ches

,

root

dam

age

- m

inor

,

Mod

erat

e10

0+re

mov

e de

ad

bran

ches

<1

00m

m d

ia.

over

road

and

fo

otpa

ths,

shor

ten

larg

er

dead

bra

nche

s as

requ

ired

ASAP

No

prun

ing

has o

ccur

red

with

in

reco

mm

ende

d tim

e fr

ame.

U

nder

take

reco

mm

ende

d pr

unin

g AS

AP.

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5Re

view

ed 2

nd D

ecem

ber 2

016

by T

ree

Envi

rons

pa

ge 6

of 9

ATTACHMENT B9

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Risk

Life

ex

pect

. M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Revi

sed

Prio

rity

Revi

ew c

omm

ents

Dec

embe

r 201

6

47Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

6.94

. ex

empt

de

ad tr

ee

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

150+

Dead

activ

e be

ehiv

e

Aver

age

inte

rnal

dec

ay

low

er tr

unk-

min

or,

de

cay

in u

pper

cr

own

unkn

own,

se

vera

l lar

ge

habi

tat h

ollo

ws -

pr

evio

usly

sh

orte

ned.

cr

acks

in v

ario

us

bran

ches

hav

e in

crea

sede

in si

ze

Unk

now

n no

neae

rial

insp

ectio

n or

pu

ll te

st

requ

ired,

pa

ssiv

e ex

clus

ion

zone

- m

ulch

and

un

derp

lant

,

real

ign

foot

path

,

re

loca

te

hand

icap

pa

rkin

g ba

ys

ASAP

Area

aro

und

tree

has

bee

n pa

rtia

lly

bunt

ed o

ff.

Pede

stria

n fo

otpa

th st

ill p

asse

s nea

r tre

e an

d ha

s not

bee

n bu

nted

off.

Path

s or p

arki

ng b

ays h

ave

not b

een

relo

cate

d.

Tree

has

not

bee

n te

sted

or p

ulle

d to

as

sess

inte

grity

.

Cr

acks

in tr

ee h

ave

enla

rged

and

tree

ap

pear

s to

be b

ecom

ing

mor

e un

stab

le.

Tree

nee

ds to

be

insp

ecte

d cl

osel

y to

de

term

ine

man

agem

ent r

equi

rem

ents

.

Prun

ing

wor

ks o

r tre

e re

mov

al w

ill b

e re

quire

d.

50Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

4.60

ex

empt

de

ad tr

ee

med

ium

(1

0-20

m)

150+

Dead

Aver

age

in

tern

al d

ecay

lo

wer

trun

k -

mod

erat

e,

in

tern

al d

ecay

mai

n br

anch

es u

nkno

wn,

seve

ral h

abita

t ho

llow

s,

Unk

now

n no

neae

rial

insp

ectio

n or

pu

ll te

st

requ

ired,

ASAP

Coun

cil a

rbor

ists i

nspe

cted

tree

from

to

wer

and

not

ed so

me

inst

abili

ty in

gr

ound

.

Tree

had

som

e pr

unin

g to

redu

ce h

eigh

t an

d le

vera

ge.

Ad

ditio

nal t

estin

g re

quire

d to

det

erm

ine

if tr

ee st

abili

ty is

acc

epta

ble.

If no

t, tr

ee re

mov

al sh

ould

be

cons

ider

ed

(due

to li

mite

d ha

bita

t val

ue o

f sin

gle

dead

trun

k).

Re

-alig

nmen

t of p

ath

may

not

be

just

ified

fo

r thi

s tre

e.

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5Re

view

ed 2

nd D

ecem

ber 2

016

by T

ree

Envi

rons

pa

ge 7

of 9

ATTACHMENT B10

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Risk

Life

ex

pect

. M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Revi

sed

Prio

rity

Revi

ew c

omm

ents

Dec

embe

r 201

6

51Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Rive

r Red

Gum

6.21

sig

nific

ant

la

rge

(>20

m)

150+

Good

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

in

uppe

r cro

wn,

larg

e ho

llow

de

ad

bran

ches

in

mid

cro

wn,

bo

rer a

ctiv

ity -

min

or,

po

ssum

gr

azin

g

Aver

age

singl

e tr

unk,

broa

d sp

read

ing

crow

n,

cr

own

form

- irr

egul

ar,

se

vera

l old

larg

e br

anch

failu

res i

n lo

wer

cro

wn

and

seve

ral o

ld m

ediu

m

bran

ch fa

ilure

s in

mid

cro

wn,

re

cent

bra

nch

failu

res -

lim

ited,

la

rge

dead

br

anch

es

(sho

rten

ed fo

r ha

bita

t),

seve

ral s

mal

l and

la

rge

habi

tat

hollo

ws,

resp

onse

gro

wth

- m

oder

ate,

inte

rnal

dec

ay

low

er tr

unk-

min

or,

in

tern

al d

ecay

br

anch

es u

nkno

wn,

Unk

now

n 10

0+Re

alig

n pa

th,

mul

ch a

nd

unde

rpla

nt,

ASAP

No

actio

n ha

s occ

urre

d w

ithin

re

com

men

ded

time

fram

e.

Real

ign

pede

stria

n pa

th a

way

from

tree

cr

own.

Mul

ch a

nd u

nder

plan

t to

impr

ove

tree

he

alth

and

man

age

targ

et zo

ne.

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5Re

view

ed 2

nd D

ecem

ber 2

016

by T

ree

Envi

rons

pa

ge 8

of 9

ATTACHMENT B11

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

Tree

Aud

itTr

ee

#Sp

ecie

sCi

rcum

f. @

1m

(m)

Heig

ht

(m)

Age

Heal

thSt

ruct

ure

Risk

Life

ex

pect

. M

anag

emen

t re

cs

Revi

sed

Prio

rity

Revi

ew c

omm

ents

Dec

embe

r 201

6

52Pi

nus

hale

pens

is

Alep

po P

ine

3.66

. sig

nific

ant

la

rge

(>20

m)

80-1

00Go

od

de

ad

bran

ches

- m

inor

,

Aver

age

singl

e tr

unk,

br

anch

es

conc

entr

ated

in

uppe

r thi

rd,

crow

n fo

rm -

sym

met

ric,

crow

n de

nsity

- de

nse,

six n

otab

le li

ve

bran

ch fa

ilure

s in

rece

nt y

ears

,

prun

ing

hist

ory

- go

od,

Low

10-2

0no

pru

ning

re

quire

d

m

ulch

and

un

derp

lant

to

impr

ove

tree

he

alth

and

fu

ture

risk

.

Re

loca

te

swin

gs o

ut

from

cro

wn

area

.,

Med

ium

(w

ithin

2

year

s)

80Eu

caly

ptus

ca

mal

dule

nsis

Ri

ver R

ed G

um

se

vera

l you

ng

sapl

ings

<1m

sm

all

(<10

m)

<10

varie

s.

so

me

with

le

af p

ests

- m

oder

ate,

Av

erag

e

so

me

loos

e in

gr

ound

,

plan

ted

too

clos

e to

geth

er,

Low

10-2

0th

in o

ut tr

ees.

1 fe

atur

e is

tree

bet

ter

than

a g

roup

of

infe

rior

tree

s.

High

(w

ithin

6

mon

ths)

Mai

ntai

n su

itabl

e tr

ee d

ensit

y in

clo

se

prox

imity

to ro

adw

ay.

Crow

ded

tree

s m

ay le

ad to

tree

s lea

ning

ove

r roa

dway

an

d in

ferio

r tre

e gr

owth

.

surv

eyed

17t

h an

d 18

th A

ugus

t 201

5Re

view

ed 2

nd D

ecem

ber 2

016

by T

ree

Envi

rons

pa

ge 9

of 9

ATTACHMENT B12

Mitc

ham

Res

erve

–Tr

eeA

udit

–Si

tePl

anw

ithTr

eeN

umbe

rs–

Sept

embe

r201

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

131211

109

8

7

1415

16 1718

19

2021

22

23

2425

26

272829

30

31

32

33

3435

36

37

3839

40

4142

43

44 50

4546

47

4849 51

52

5354

555657

585960

62

61

6364

6566

67

6869

70

7178

77

7675

74

7372

79

80

8182

8384

ATTACHMENT B13

ATTACHMENT C1

TREE SURVEY REPORT Mitcham Reserve Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 _____ 6 | Page Managing...

Documents

Transcript of TREE SURVEY REPORT Mitcham Reserve Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 _____ 6 | Page Managing...