department of health autumn 2016 tree health monitoring€¦ · appendix b - tree health data...

Department of Health

Autumn 2016 Tree Health Monitoring

Busselton Health Campus

18 April 2016

This page has been left intentionally blank

Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd

ABN: 65 140 765 902 i

Autumn 2016 Tree Health Monitoring

Prepared for


Prepared by


Suite 2, 53 Burswood Road,

Burswood WA 6100 Australia

t: +61 8 9269 6200 f: 08 9269 6299

ABN: 65 140 765 902

18 April 2016

ENAUPERT04326AD_011_v1

Library Reference: EP2016/24

Quality information

Revision history

Revision Description Date Originator Reviewer Approver

v1 v1 to client 18/04/2016 M. Holliday N. Raymond

C. van den Bergh

N. Raymond

Distribution

Report Status No. of copies Format Distributed to Date

v1 1 PDF Department of Health 18/04/2015


ABN: 65 140 765 902 ii

This page has been left intentionally blank.


ABN: 65 140 765 902 iii

Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

2. Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1. On-ground tree health survey ........................................................................................... 3

2.2. Remote sensing (aerial) tree health survey ...................................................................... 3

3. Results ......................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1. Climate .............................................................................................................................. 5

3.2. Vigour ................................................................................................................................ 5

3.3. Crown density and foliage transparency ........................................................................... 6

3.4. Crown dieback................................................................................................................... 7

3.5. General tree observations ................................................................................................. 8

3.5.1. Insect damage ...................................................................................................... 8

3.5.2. Pathogen presence .............................................................................................. 8

3.5.3. Epicormic growth .................................................................................................. 8

3.5.4. Tree death ............................................................................................................ 9

3.5.5. Flowering/fruiting .................................................................................................. 9

3.5.6. Presence of Western Ringtail Possums and dreys .............................................. 9

3.6. Remote Sensing – Change detection ............................................................................... 9

4. Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 11

5. Recommendations..................................................................................................................... 13

6. References ................................................................................................................................ 14

Tables

1 Mean combined vigour class across the autumn monitoring events ............................................. 6

2 Mean vigour class of each sampling location across the autumn monitoring events .................... 6

3 Mean crown density and mean foliage transparency across the autumn monitoring events ........ 6

4 Mean crown density (%) of each sampling location across the autumn monitoring events .......... 7

5 Summary of tree health state between autumn monitoring events ............................................ 11

6 Assessment of tree health against the autumn trigger levels ..................................................... 12


ABN: 65 140 765 902 iv

Figures

1 Survey and conservation area ....................................................................................................... 2

2 Transect and tagged tree location ................................................................................................. 4

3 Average long-term and 2015/2016 monthly rainfall totals from weather station No. 009515

(BOM, 2016). .................................................................................................................................. 5

4 Frequency of crown dieback categories across the autumn monitoring events ............................ 7

5 Number of tagged trees showing insect damage .......................................................................... 8

6 Mean plant cell density across the autumn monitoring events ...................................................... 9

Appendices

Appendix A - Tree health monitoring procedure (Coffey, 2013a)

Appendix B - Tree health data autumn 2016 survey

Appendix C - Monthly rainfall total (January 2010 to February 2016)

Appendix D - Number and percentage of trees recorded in each crown dieback category for all

autumn monitoring events

Appendix E - SpecTerra Services – Busselton Hospital Change Detection March 2015 – March 2016

Appendix F - SpecTerra Services – Busselton Hospital Change Detection March 2011 – March 2016

Busselton Health Campus| Autumn 2016 Tree Health Monitoring

Coffey


April 2016

1

1. Introduction

The Western Australian Department of Health (DOH) has finished the construction of the new

Busselton Health Campus on the existing Busselton Hospital site and is in the process of constructing

additional hospital parking. The new Busselton Health Campus will cater for the future demands for

health services in the southwest region of Western Australian.

The Busselton Hospital site is 12.3 hectares (ha) in size, of which a large portion is open Peppermint

(Agonis flexuosa) woodland, with relatively little understorey (Figure 1). The site is located within core

habitat for the Western Ringtail Possum (WRP) (Pseudocheirus occidentalis), which is listed as a

threatened species under both State (Endangered under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (WC

Act)) and Federal (Vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999 (EPBC Act)) environmental legislation.

The preparation and implementation of a WRP Management Plan was a condition of approval for the

Busselton Health Campus redevelopment under the EPBC Act (EPBC 2011/6011) and Environmental

Protection Act 1986 (NVCP 4433/2). The WRP Management Plan (V9) was subsequently revised and

approved by the then Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

(now the Department of the Environment) and the Department of Environment Regulation (DER)

(15/08/2013).

The approved WRP Management Plan (Coffey, 2013a) outlines the requirement for a tree health

monitoring program to be conducted at the Busselton Health Campus, as detailed in Management

Measure 15 (M15):

‘Monitor tree health twice a year during construction and for no less than two years post-

construction using ground-based and remote sensing methods… Monitoring will then be

undertaken once a year at 5 and 10 years post-construction. Twice yearly monitoring will be

undertaken in approximately March and September of each year to allow comparison with

previous monitoring results. Annual monitoring will be undertaken in approximately September’.

A Tree Health Monitoring Procedure (Appendix A) was developed and approved as part of the WRP

Management Plan. Coffey was commissioned in 2013 to undertake the tree health monitoring

program (until 2017) and this report details the results of the autumn (March) 2016 tree health

monitoring.

Date:

MXD:

File Name:

344,000

344,000

344,100

344,100

344,200

344,200

344,300

344,300

6,27

4,70

0

6,27

4,70

0

6,27

4,80

0

6,27

4,80

0

6,27

4,90

0

6,27

4,90

0

6,27

5,00

0

6,27

5,00

0

6,27

5,10

0

6,27

5,10

0

6,27

5,20

0

6,27

5,20

0

Figure No:

SourceRedevelopment area from Natural Area Consultants (June 2013)Road names from Landgate.Aerial imagery from Specterra (March 2016).

1Survey and conservation areaMarch 2016 Tree Health MonitoringBusselton Health Campus


4326AD_011_F001_GIS

Bussell Highway

Mill Roa

dCraig Street

LEGEND

Site boundary

Conservation area

BUS

SELL H

IGH

WAY

SUE

S R

OA

D

CAV

ES R

OA

D VASSE HIGHWAY

CAPEL

NANNUP

BUSSELTON

DONNYBROOKDUNSBOROUGH

MARGARET RIVER

N

Page size: A4

0 60m

Projection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50

Scale 1:2,500

ENAUPERT04326AD

MXD

Refer

ence

: 432

6AD_

011_

GIS0

01_v

0_1

18.03.2016


Coffey


April 2016

3

2. Methods

The approach employed for the autumn 2016 tree health monitoring was consistent with monitoring

completed by Coffey to date (September 2010 to October 2015) (Coffey, 2011a; 2011b; 2012a;

2012b; 2013b; 2013c; 2014a; 2014b, 2015a, 2015b) and in accordance with the current Busselton

Health Campus Tree Health Monitoring Procedure (Appendix A). The tree health monitoring was

undertaken in two stages, including an on-ground tree health survey and a remote sensing (aerial)

tree health survey.

2.1. On-ground tree health survey

The on-ground tree health survey was conducted on 9 March 2016. The survey was undertaken by an

experienced botanist in conjunction with the WRP monitoring survey.

Two hundred and eighty seven (287) Peppermint trees, two Melaleucas and one Eucalypt tree were

tagged during the initial baseline monitoring events in September 2010 and March 2011, including

152 trees along four, 100 m long transects within 5 m of transect centrelines and another 138

individually tagged trees located throughout the site. Since 2013 a number of trees have been

removed in accordance with state and federal environmental approvals. The on-ground tree health

survey involves the visual assessment of the remaining 230 (227 Peppermint trees, two Melaleucas

and one Eucalypt tree) tagged trees (Figure 2) in accordance with the Tree Health Monitoring

Procedure provided as Appendix A.

2.2. Remote sensing (aerial) tree health survey

The remote sensing (aerial) tree health survey was conducted by SpecTerra Services Pty Ltd

(SpecTerra). The airborne survey over the Busselton Health Campus site was undertaken on

12 March 2016.

The remote sensing survey involved the collection of a Digital Multi-Spectral Image (DMSI) of the site

using a High Resolution Airborne Multispectral Sensor (HiRAMS) (Appendix A). The airborne image is

corrected for camera distortion and scene brightness effects, before GeoTiff image products

(including true colour image, false colour infrared image, pseudo colour plant cell density index image

and composite change detection) are produced and analysed.

Change detection or Plant Cell Density (PCD) (infrared reflectance over red reflectance) change is a

simple remote sensing image analysis technique for measuring plant cell density and health. The

PCD is sensitive to the quantity of leaves in each pixel (sample) and the density of healthy plant cells

in those leaves. The red band (675 nm) is positioned at maximum absorption by leaf chlorophyll

content and the infrared band (780 nm) where the leaf structure of healthy plants strongly reflects

incoming energy (Appendix A).

SpecTerra have five PCD change classes that reflect the gain or loss in PCD. SpecTerra have also

included a sixth class that refers to trees that have been lost/ removed between two data acquisition

periods. The five PCD change classes are:

Less than (<) -50% – Maximum Loss in PCD.

-50% to -30% – Moderate Loss in PCD.

-30% to -10% – Minor Loss in PCD.

-10% to 10% – No Significant Change in PCD.

Greater than (>) 10% – Gain in PCD.

Following correction, production and analysis of the imagery, SpecTerra prepared a report detailing

the calibrated mean and standard deviation of PCD values for identified tree canopy clusters collected

during the survey and a comparison to previous fly-overs, referred to as ‘change detection’.

Date:

MXD:

File Name:

001002

003

004005

006

007

008009010

011

012013014

015016017

018019

020021022023

024 025

026027

028029

030

031

032

033

034

035

036037

038039

040041042

043044

045 046047

048

049 050051

052

053054

055

056057058

059

060061062

063

064065

066067

068

069070

071

072073

074075076

077

078

079

080

081

082083

084085086

087

088089

090091

092093

094095096097

098099100

101

102103104

105

106107

108

109110111

112113

114115 116

117118

119120121122

123 124125126

127

128129

130

131132

133134135

136137

138

142

143

144

145146

147 148

149

150

175

176

177

178

183

184

187188

202204

205206

207

208

209

210

211

212

214215

216

217218

219220221

222

223

224225

226227228

229

230231

232

233

234235

236

237238

239

240241242

243

244

245246

247 248

249

250

189

251252

253254

255

256

257

258

259

260261

262

263264

265266

267

268

269

270

271272

273274

275277

278

279

280281

282

344,100

344,100

344,200

344,200

344,300

344,300

6,27

4,70

0

6,27

4,70

0

6,27

4,80

0

6,27

4,80

0

6,27

4,90

0

6,27

4,90

0

6,27

5,00

0

6,27

5,00

0

6,27

5,10

0

6,27

5,10

0

Figure No:

SourceRedevelopment area from Natural Area Consultants (June 2013)Road names from Landgate.Aerial imagery from Specterra (March 2016).

2Transect and tagged tree locationsMarch 2016 Tree Health MonitoringBusselton Health Campus


4326AD_011_F002_GIS

Bussell Highway

Mill Roa

dCraig Street

LEGEND

Tagged tree

Transect

Conservation area

Site boundary

N

Page size: A4

0 30m

Projection: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 50

Scale 1:2,000

ENAUPERT04326AD

MXD

Refer

ence

: 432

6AD_

011_

GIS0

02_v

0_1

18.03.2016

TAG


Coffey


April 2016

5

3. Results

The data collected from the 230 tagged trees during the autumn 2016 monitoring event is provided in

Appendix B.

3.1. Climate

The nearest public climate data is available from Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) Station 009515

(Busselton Shire). For the three months prior to the survey (December 2015 – February 2016)

Busselton Shire received 85.2 mm of rainfall, 39% higher than the mean monthly rainfall (33 mm) for

the same period (Figure 3) (BOM, 2016). The majority (62 mm) of this rain fell during one large event

19 to 20 of January 2016 (BOM, 2016).

The rainfall recorded at the Busselton Shire weather station since the previous 2015 March tree

health assessment was 650.4 mm, 19%, below the mean 12 month rainfall of 805.9 mm (BOM, 2016).

Figure 3 Average long-term and 2015/2016 monthly rainfall totals from weather station

No. 009515 (BOM, 2016).

The actual monthly rainfall for the Busselton Shire from January 2010 through to February 2016 and

the mean monthly average is provided in Appendix C for comparison. Overall, the rainfall recorded at

the Busselton Shire has been below the expected average, with only 26 out of the 146 months since

January 2010, receiving average or above average rainfall (Appendix C).

3.2. Vigour

A mean combined vigour class value of 1.64 was recorded from the tagged trees during the autumn

2016 monitoring (Table 1). The mean combined vigour class across the autumn monitoring events

(March surveys) showed an increasing trend (a decline in vigour) from 2011 to 2014. However

subsequent surveys have shown a decrease in the mean combined vigour class over time, indicating

an increase in live tree canopy and suggesting an improvement in tree health since autumn 2014.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16

Actual monthly rainfall (mm) Mean monthly rainfall (mm)


Coffey


April 2016

6

Table 1 Mean combined vigour class across the autumn monitoring events

Survey Mean combined vigour class1

March 2011 1.60

March 2012 1.80

March 2013 1.86

March 2014 1.89

March 2015 1.75

March 2016 1.64

Source: Coffey (2011a, 2012a, 2013b, 2014a and 2015a).

1. A value of 1 indicates a healthy tree, while a value of 3 indicates an unhealthy, dying or dead tree.

Table 2 compares the mean vigour class ratings recorded across the four transects, the individually

tagged trees and combined data across the autumn monitoring events since 2011. The vigour ratings

in autumn 2016 for Transects 1, 2 and 3 and all locations combined are still above the initial vigour

ratings from the autumn 2011 survey (Table 2), indicating these sampling locations (and the site

generally) have not returned to/improved on their health since the initial baseline monitoring(March

2011).. However, compared to the previous year (2015) all sampling locations show a decrease in

their vigour rating, suggesting an improvement in tree health across the site since autumn 2015.

Table 2 Mean vigour class of each sampling location across the autumn monitoring events

Location 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Transect 1 1.75 2.03 2.05 2.11 1.98 1.82

Transect 2 1.65 2.02 1.97 1.87 1.73 1.68

Transect 3 1.74 1.87 1.91 2.06 1.91 1.83

Transect 4 1.86 2.00 1.90 2.00 1.74 1.68

Individual 1.47 1.63 1.69 1.69 1.58 1.45

Combined 1.60 1.80 1.86 1.89 1.75 1.64

3.3. Crown density and foliage transparency

A mean crown density of 30.62% was recorded during the autumn 2016 monitoring (Table 3),

indicating an improvement in canopy cover and tree health since the previous autumn monitoring

event (March 2015) and the initial autumn baseline (March 2011).

Mean foliage transparency (Table 3) is the opposite of mean crown density; therefore a decrease in

crown density will result in an increase in foliage transparency and is not discussed further.

Table 3 Mean crown density and mean foliage transparency across the autumn monitoring events

Survey

Mean crown density (%) Mean foliage transparency (%)

March 2011 27.97 72.03

March 2012 25.65 74.06

March 2013 24.61 75.39

March 2014 25.65 74.35

March 2015 25.57 74.43

March 2016 30.62 69.38

Source: Coffey (2011a, 2012a, 2013b, 2014a and 2015a).


Coffey


April 2016

7

Since the 2015 autumn monitoring event, all sampling locations have recorded an increase in their

mean crown density (Table 4), while transects 3 and 4 and individually tagged trees have also shown

an increase in mean crown density since the initial autumn baseline (March 2011).

Table 4 Mean crown density (%) of each sampling location across the autumn monitoring events

Location 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Transect 1 29.09 25.36 23.45 23.73 22.36 25.40

Transect 2 30.16 26.29 24.19 27.10 25.65 28.19

Transect 3 25.74 25.22 23.15 24.07 24.07 26.26

Transect 4 25.40 26.09 23.40 23.60 24.20 31.32

Individual 27.94 26.52 26.20 27.34 28.26 35.65

Combined 27.97 25.65 24.61 25.65 25.57 30.62

3.4. Crown dieback

The monitoring undertaken in autumn 2016 identified evidence of crown dieback in all of the tagged

trees and an increase in crown dieback (less trees in Category 1) when compared to the initial

autumn baseline (March 2011).

Since the initial autumn baseline (March 2011) there has been an increase of trees in Category 2, 3,

and 7, and a decrease of trees in Categories 1, 4, 5 and 6 (Figure 4, Appendix D). Since March 2015,

there has been an increase in trees in Category 2, 5 and 7, a decrease in trees in Categories 1, 3 and

6 and no change to the number of trees in Category 4.

A comparison of the number of trees within each crown dieback category at each sampling location

and across all autumn monitoring events is presented in Appendix D.

It is difficult to identify a trend in crown dieback when comparing the results across the autumn

monitoring events. A level of crown dieback from the tree is expected through natural attrition.

Figure 4 Frequency of crown dieback categories across the autumn monitoring events

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 (Best) 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Worst)

Nu

mb

er

of

tre

es

Crown Dieback Category

Mar-11

Mar-12

Mar-13

Mar-14

Mar-15

Mar-16


Coffey


April 2016

8

3.5. General tree observations

3.5.1. Insect damage

A total of 146 tagged trees showed some signs of insect damage through insect borers and/or

termites during the autumn 2016 monitoring. Borers were identified from 63 trees while termites were

recorded from 122 trees (Figure 5). Thirty nine trees were recorded as having signs of both borers

and termites

Since the initial autumn baseline (March 2011) and the previous autumn monitoring event (2015)

there has been an increase in insect damage.

Figure 5 Number of tagged trees showing insect damage

3.5.2. Pathogen presence

During the autumn 2016 monitoring event, the majority of trees showed no signs of pathogens, with

the exception of trees 069, 221 and 257 (one of which was previously recorded during the 2015

autumn monitoring event, and all three were previously recorded during the 2015 spring monitoring

event). The presence of pathogens and their fruiting bodies does not necessarily translate to

unhealthy trees. Fungal pathogens were not identified; however, were not considered to be

Neofusicoccum australe, which is known to be an opportunistic canker pathogen responsible for

crown dieback in Peppermint trees in Western Australia (Dakin et al., 2010 and DPAW, 2014). The

presence of pathogens has remained relatively stable across the Busselton Health Campus

(maximum of seven trees in March 2011 to minimum of zero trees in March 2012), throughout the

autumn monitoring events.

3.5.3. Epicormic growth

During the autumn 2016 monitoring, 32 of the tagged trees (14%) were identified with epicormic

growth. This is an increase in trees identified with epicormic growth when compared to the previous

autumn 2015 monitoring event (28 trees) and the initial autumn baseline (March 2011) (83 trees).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 Mar-14 Mar-15 Mar-16

Nu

mb

er

of

Tre

es

Tree Health Monitoring Event

Termites Borer


Coffey


April 2016

9

3.5.4. Tree death

Since the previous autumn 2015 monitoring event, five tree deaths were recorded during the spring

2015 monitoring event (Tag No. 043, 045, 105, 108 and 116). No new tree deaths were recorded

between the spring 2015 and autumn 2016 monitoring events. There has been a total of six tree

deaths since the pre-construction baseline (March 2012).

3.5.5. Flowering/fruiting

The majority of tagged trees (202 trees, 88%) were in various stages of fruiting at the time of the

survey. This is a decrease in the percentage of fruiting trees when compared to the initial autumn

baseline (March 2011) (100%) and when compared to the previous autumn 2015 monitoring event

(93%).

3.5.6. Presence of Western Ringtail Possums and dreys

Five WRPs and 13 dreys (nests constructed by the WRP) were recorded within the 230 tagged trees

during the autumn 2016 monitoring event. The possums and dreys were scattered over the entire

Busselton Health Campus site.

These recordings were opportunistic sightings and are not considered to be a comprehensive

assessment of the presence of WRPs at the site. Comprehensive WRP assessments have been

undertaken by Coffey biannually since 2009.

Three deceased WRPs were recorded near a number of tagged trees (091, 129 and 281). The cause

of death is unknown.

3.6. Remote Sensing – Change detection

The autumn 2016 monitoring event indicates that there has been a 15% increase in the mean PCD

value (thus tree health) across the site since the initial autumn baseline (March 2011), and a 1%

increase in PCD since autumn 2015 (Figure 6).

Figure 6 Mean plant cell density across the autumn monitoring events

604

694

659

765

703 710

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

Me

an

PC

D v

alu

e

Autumn Tree Health Monitoring Event

Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 Mar-14 Mar-15 Mar-16


Coffey


April 2016

10

Autumn 2015 to autumn 2016

PCD change is depicted in the change detection map for the period autumn 2015 to autumn 2016

provided as Appendix E. DMSI mapping for this period indicated that approximately:

0.6% (equivalent to 4 trees) of the trees have been lost (tree death/approved clearing).

0% (equivalent to 0 trees) of the trees recorded a maximum loss (<-50% change) in PCD.

0.1% (equivalent to 1 tree) of the trees recorded a moderate loss

(-50% to -30% change) in PCD.

15.5% (equivalent to 108 trees) of the trees recorded a minor loss

(-30% to -10% change) in PCD.

63.6% equivalent to 442 trees) of the trees recorded a stable (± 10%) PCD.

20.1% (equivalent to 140 trees) of the trees recorded a PCD gain (>10%).

Three of the four trees lost between the autumn 2015 and autumn 2016 monitoring events, were

bottlebrushes and were located in association with approved health campus activities (former hospital

demolition and car park). The remaining tree was lost from within the conservation area and is most

likely a Peppermint tree that was previously observed during on-ground survey as having been

damaged during the significant storms in winter 2014, and which had persisted (i.e. green foliage)

until this monitoring event before losing all foliage. As a result, this tree death is not believed to be

attributable to the approved clearing, construction, development and demolition activities for the

Busselton Health Campus.

Autumn 2011 to autumn 2016

PCD change mapping for the Busselton Health Campus for the period autumn 2011 to autumn 2016

was examined for comparison. DMSI mapping (Appendix F) and change detection for this period

indicated that approximately:

20% (equivalent to 172 trees) of the trees have been lost (tree death/approved clearing).

0% (0 trees) of the trees recorded a maximum loss (<-50% change) in PCD.

1% (equivalent of 10 trees) of the trees recorded a moderate loss (-50% to -30% change) in PCD.

4% (equivalent of 36 trees) of the trees recorded a minor loss (-30% to -10% change) in PCD.

17% (equivalent of 142 trees) of the trees recorded a stable (± 10%) PCD.

58% (equivalent of 503 trees) of the trees recorded a PCD gain (>10%).

These results support the findings of the autumn 2016 on-ground survey, which indicates an

improvement in tree health over time to values nearing or exceeding the initial autumn baseline

(March 2011).


Coffey


April 2016

11

4. Discussion

Based on the results of the autumn 2016 on-ground tree health survey and remote sensing survey,

the health of tagged trees is generally considered to be improving. Three of the values recorded

during the monitoring are considered particularly useful in determining tree health change, namely

crown density; canopy vigour and PCD change.

The remainder of the recorded values (crown dieback and general tree health observations; epicormic

growth, pathogens and insect activity) provide additional information and potential explanations to tree

health improvement or decline when discussed in context with the remaining values, but are not

considered to be directly useful values in determining tree health.

Table 5 summarises the improvement, stability and/or decline in tree health based on vigour, crown

density and PCD values between the initial autumn baseline (March 2011) and the 2016 autumn

monitoring event.

Table 5 Summary of tree health state between autumn monitoring events

Survey time Improving Stable/neutral Declining

Vigour 2011–2016

2015–2016

Crown Density 2011–2016

2015–2016

PCD Value 2011–2016

2015–2016

This improvement is most likely related to the ongoing conservation works and landscaping activities

(e.g., application of mulch and watering) being undertaken across the site, and unlikely to be related

to weather, given rainfall recorded since late 2010 has been steadily decreasing over time.

The WRP Management Plan has identified contingency measures to be undertaken if certain trigger

levels relating to tree canopy health are met or exceeded. If these trigger levels are met or exceeded

the DOH will notify and consult with the DER and the Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPAW) to

discuss whether the decline is a local or regional occurrence. The trigger levels for decline in tree

health are:

A catastrophic decline, considered a 20% or greater reduction in tree canopy.

A general decline in tree health of 30% or greater of the entire site (as determined through aerial

imagery).

For the purposes of tree canopy health, the baseline values are those recorded during the autumn

and spring tree health monitoring events immediately prior to the development of the Busselton

Health Campus. The construction of the Busselton Health Campus occurred in late 2012, therefore

the autumn and spring 2012 results are considered to be the pre-construction baseline values.

There is very little meaning in comparing spring and autumn results due to seasonal variability,

therefore, the autumn tree health monitoring events are compared against the autumn 2012

monitoring event (autumn pre-construction baseline), while the spring tree health monitoring events

are compared against the spring 2012 monitoring event (spring pre-construction baseline).


Coffey


April 2016

12

An assessment of the autumn 2016 monitoring results against the autumn pre-construction baseline

trigger levels is presented in Table 6.

Table 6 Assessment of tree health against the autumn trigger levels

Trigger Level Autumn baseline values

1

Trigger values

Autumn 2016

values

Percentage change

Has it been triggered?

20% or greater reduction in tree canopy (Crown Density)

25.94% 20.75% 30.62% +18.04% No

30% or greater decline in tree health (PCD)

694 486 710 +2.31% No

1 The autumn 2012 data has been used as the baseline (i.e. pre-construction).

The tagged trees located across the Busselton Health Campus have shown an increase in both crown

density (18.04%) and PCD values (2.31%) since the autumn pre-construction baseline as shown in

Table 6. The trigger levels have not been exceeded and consultation with DER and DPAW is not

required.

The next tree health monitoring event will be conducted in spring 2016 (October), in accordance with

the approved WRP Management Plan.


Coffey


April 2016

13

5. Recommendations

Based on the results of the autumn 2016 tree health monitoring, the following management measures

may be implemented to maintain and improve the tree health at Busselton Health Campus.

Review the rehabilitation management plan to determine if the current approved Integrated Pest

Management (IPM) plan is adequate to manage observed insect activity.

Undertake supplementary watering, where necessary, including during prolonged periods of

drought or high tree stress events (i.e. strong drying winds).

Continue to minimise vehicle access over the hospital grounds where there are no formal parking

bays or driveways to prevent soil compaction and damage to tree roots (especially the fine feeder

roots that are located closer to the surface).

Ensure on-site works do not impact on the trees that remain within the Busselton Hospital

Campus site, excluding trees that are approved to be cleared.

Where practicable, the natural regeneration of the Peppermint seedlings on site should be

protected and managed to ensure survival and to increase the Peppermint coverage within the

site.

Ongoing site rehabilitation activities in the conservation area should continue. This may include

the continued mulching of the site which provides weed suppression, nutrients and reduces the

loss of surface and sub-surface soil moisture.


Coffey


April 2016

14

6. References

BOM. 2016. Daily rainfall. A WWW publication accessed 23 March 2016 at

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=136&p_display_type=dailyData

File&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=009515. Bureau of Meteorology. Australia.

Coffey. 2011a. Tree Health and Western Ringtail Possum Habitat Assessment Busselton Hospital

Site. Report No. EP2010/231 Version 6. Unpublished report prepared by Coffey Environments

Australia Pty Ltd for Department of Health and the Department of Treasury and Finance, Western

Australia.

Coffey. 2011b. Tree Health Monitoring Busselton Hospital Site September 2011/October 2011. Report

No. EP2012/153 Version 2. November. Unpublished report prepared by Coffey Environments

Australia Pty Ltd for Department of Health and the Department of Treasury and Finance, Western

Australia.

Coffey 2012a. Tree Health Monitoring Busselton Hospital Site March 2012. Report No. EP2011/186

Version 1. May. Unpublished report prepared by Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd, for

Department of Health and the Department of Treasury and Finance, Western Australia.

Coffey. 2012b. Tree Health Monitoring Busselton Hospital Site October 2012. Report No. EP2012/198

Version 3. November. Unpublished report prepared by Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd, for


Coffey 2013a. Western Ringtail Possum Management Plan, Department of Health Busselton Hospital

Health Campus Redevelopment, Report No. EP2011-143 Version 9 Final. August. Unpublished report

prepared by Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd, for the Department of Health and the Department

of Treasury and Finance, Western Australia.

Coffey. 2013b. Tree Health Monitoring Busselton Hospital Site March 2013. Report No. EP2013/039

Version 3. April. Unpublished report prepared by Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd, for the


Coffey 2013c. October 2013 Tree Health Monitoring. Busselton Hospital Health Campus. Report No.

EP2013/199 Version 3. December. Unpublished report prepared by Coffey Environments Australia

Pty Ltd, for the Department of Health, Western Australia.

Coffey 2014a. March 2014 Tree Health Monitoring. Busselton Health Campus. Report No.

EP2014/033, Version 1. April. Unpublished report prepared by Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd

for the Department of Health, Western Australia.

Coffey 2014b. October 2014 Tree Health Monitoring. Busselton Health Campus. Report No.

EP2014/136, Version 2. November. Unpublished report prepared by Coffey Environments Australia

Pty Ltd for the Department of Health, western Australian.

Coffey. 2015a. March 2015 Tree Health Monitoring. Busselton Health Campus. Report No.

EP2015/037, Version 2. April. Unpublished report prepared by Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd,

for the Department of Health. Western Australia.

Coffey. 2015b. Spring 2015 Tree Health Monitoring. Busselton Hospital Campus. Report No.

EP2015/037, Version 1. November. Unpublished report prepared by Coffey Environments Australia

Pty Ltd, for the Department of Health. Western Australia.

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=136&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=009515

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=136&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=009515


Coffey


April 2016

15

Dakin, N., White, D., Hardy, G. and Burgess, T. 2010. The opportunistic pathogen, Neofusicoccum

australe, is responsible for crown dieback of Peppermint (Agonis flexuosa) in Western Australia.

Australasian Plant Pathology, CSIRO Publishing, Vol 39, pg. 202-206.

DPAW. 2014. Western Ringtail Possum (Pseudocheirus occidentalis) Recovery Plan. Wildlife

Management Program No. 58. Report prepared by Department of Parks and Wildlife, Perth, Western

Australia.

Appendix A - Tree health monitoring procedure

(Coffey, 2013a)

Tree health monitoring procedure This procedure has been prepared to outline the Tree Health Monitoring procedure to be implemented within the Conservation Area of the Busselton Health Campus site and is also detailed in the Busselton Health Campus – Revegetation Management Plan. The baseline for the tree health monitoring was undertaken in September 2010 with a follow-up survey undertaken in March 2011. These two survey periods represent baseline data for winter (September; after winter rain) and summer (March; after summer drought) health of the trees. The methodology employed utilised a combination of on-ground visual survey and digital multi-spectral imagery. The methodology for each survey method is described below.

On-ground visual health survey The on-ground visual health survey involved the establishment of four transects of 100 m in length and the tagging of 152 individual trees along these transects, within the site (112 in September 2010 and a further 40 in March 2011). Every tree along the transect 5m either side of the transect centreline was also tagged (138 trees). This equated to a total of 290 trees tagged throughout the site. The tags were attached with wire loosely wound around the tree in a way which would not hinder future growth and girth expansion of the tree.

The September 2010 winter baseline survey was undertaken on 21 and 22 September 2010 and the March 2011 summer baseline survey was undertaken on 24 and 25 March 2011.

The four transects were established within areas of dense canopy growth in the north of the site and the southwest corner. Posts were left in the ground at 10m intervals with photos taken from each post. Photos were also taken from the north side of every individual tree during the first monitoring period, where practicable. These photos may or may not be used in determining the health of the tagged trees. The following information was collected from each tagged tree within the site:

• Species – The species identification of each tree tagged was recorded (e.g. Agonis flexuosa).

• Estimated height – The height of each tagged tree was estimated visually to the nearest half metre (e.g. the nearest 0.5 m).

• Number of trunks – The number of trunks originating from the base of the tree was counted. This value can be fairly arbitrary with the possibility of two or more trees considered to be the one tree.

• Crown Position – The position of the crown was estimated based on the height of the tree and is considered to be a function of the individual live crown in relation to the surrounding over storey. Tree height between 2.5 m and 7 m was considered to have a Lower Crown Position; tree height between 7.5 m and 8.5 m was considered to have a Middle Crown Position; and tree height exceeding 9 m was considered to have an Upper Crown Position;

• Vigour – A visual assessment of the crown vigour of individual trees classified into three categories. Vigour Class 1 is trees that are considered to have a healthy percentage of live canopy and Vigour Class 3 are trees that are considered to have a very poor-degraded percentage of live canopy. Vigour Class 2 are trees that are considered to be somewhere between healthy and unhealthy.

The Vigour Class ratings ranged from 1 (for a healthy tree) through to 3 (for an unhealthy, dying or dead tree) with a rating of 1.5 or 2.5 used for trees considered to be in between either 1 and 2 or 2 and 3.

• Crown Density – Is an estimate of the proportion of the crown volume that contains biomass (e.g. green foliage, branches and reproductive structures) compared to if the entire canopy was well vegetated (e.g. 100%). Crown density is recorded as a percentage or calculated using recognised methodology. Canopy cover can also be estimated from the remote sensing imagery described below;

• Foliage Transparency – Is an estimate of the absence of foliage where foliage would normally

occur. Foliage transparency is directly related to Crown Density. Foliage Transparency is recorded as a percentage;

• Crown Dieback – Is a measure of the proportion of the crown that has experienced recent dieback from branch lets and canopy branches. Crown Dieback has been recorded into one of seven categories based on a percentage of crown dieback. The categories are:

– 0 to 5% = Category 1. – 6 to 10% = Category 2. – 11 to 20% = Category 3. – 21 to 40% = Category 4. – 41 to 60% = Category 5. – 61 to 80% = Category 6. – 81 to 100% = Category 7.

• General Tree Observations – The following observations of each tagged tree were also recorded. These observations do not generally suggest a tree is in decline;

– Insect Damage – Notes were taken from each tagged tree on obvious signs of insect damage (e.g. damage from Insect Borers). Generally trees are able to cope with some form of insect activity and trees provide a niche for many insect species (e.g. spiders);

– Pathogens – Notes were taken from each tagged tree if obvious signs of pathogens were evident (e.g. cankers, fruiting bodies);

– Epicormic Growth – Notes were taken from each tagged tree if epicormic growth was seen. Epicormic growth is a response to stress (e.g. fire) and new shoots are produced from epicormic buds;

– Flowering and/or Fruiting – Notes were taken from each tagged tree if the tree was flowering or had new fruits; and

– The Presence of Possums or Dreys – Notes were taken from each tagged tree if a possum was recorded from within the tree (asleep in the tree during the day) or a possum drey was recorded from the tree.

Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) was not taken during this survey. DBH are considered to be a long term tool for determining tree health and data is generally only collected once every year or two. It was decided not to be collected during the initial baseline (winter and summer) surveys because they had already been collected in 2009 by SurvCon Pty Ltd during a survey of the trees located on the site. It is expected that DBH values will be collected in 2011.

Digital multi-spectral imagery SpecTerra Services provide airborne remote sensing imagery for vegetation mapping and monitoring projects. SpecTerra were commissioned to provide a Digital Multi-Spectral Imagery (DMSI) of the hospital site and surrounds to provide accurate imagery of the health of the vegetation. The initial fly-over is considered to be baseline and further subsequent flights will allow comparisons to be made between the fly-overs. SpecTerra refer to this as ‘change detection’. The technique can be used to determine whether the vegetation is improving or declining based on plant cell density values.

SpecTerra Services undertook the initial fly-over on 1 October 2010 using a HiRAMs07-01 camera with a 28.00 mm focal length with a CCD (Charge-Coupled Device) array size of 2048 x 2048 with an acquisition resolution of 0.25 m to capture the digital imagery.

SpecTerra Services undertook the follow-up flight on 14 March 2011 using a HiRAMS0803 camera utilising the same focal length, CCD array size and acquisition resolution as the October 2010 fly-over.

The imagery’s were taken at four band lengths ranging from Blue (450 nm) to Near Infra-red (780 nm) with additional Green (550 nm) and Red (675 nm) Band lengths.

Using the data obtained from the fly-overs, SpecTerra are also able to compare Plant Cell Density (PCD) values between the subsequent flights to determine whether there is a notable PCD change between the different flight periods.

The two flight periods are considered to be winter and summer baseline data with meaningful results determined from comparative flight times (e.g. September 2010 compared to September 2011).

Appendix B - Tree health data autumn 2016 survey

Appendix BTree Health Data - Autumn 2016

1 of 4

Height DBH Crown Position Vigour Class Crown Density

Foliage Transparency Insects Pathogens Epicormic

Growth(m) (mm) Upper/Middle/Lower Rating 1-3 % % Yes/No Category Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No

T1 001 Agonis flexuosa 7 4 98 Lower/Middle 1.50 27 73 Yes 1 Yes No YesT1 002 Agonis flexuosa 8.5-9 1 245 Middle/Upper 2.25 17 83 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitT1 003 Agonis flexuosa 9.5 2 256 Upper 2.50 15 85 Yes 3 Yes No NoT1 004 Agonis flexuosa 9 3 269 Middle/Upper 2.50 13 87 Yes 3 Yes No YesT1 005 Agonis flexuosa 9 1 273 Middle/Upper 2.50 15 85 Yes 4 Yes No YesT1 006 Agonis flexuosa 9-9.5 1 204 Upper 3.00 10 90 Yes 4 Yes No NoT1 007 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 2 173 Lower/Middle 1.50 32 68 Yes 3 Yes No Yes FruitT1 008 Agonis flexuosa 7 2 125 Lower/Middle 1.75 25 75 Yes 2 Yes No YesT1 009 Agonis flexuosa 6-7 1 127 Lower/Middle 2.00 15 85 Yes 2 Yes No YesT1 010 Agonis flexuosa 8 3 225 Middle 1.00 42 58 Yes 2 No No No FruitT1 011 Agonis flexuosa 7 7 107 Lower/Middle 2.00 20 80 Yes 3 Yes No YesT1 012 Agonis flexuosa 6 1 145 Lower 2.00 20 80 Yes 2 No No NoT1 013 Agonis flexuosa 6 1 97 Lower 2.25 15 85 Yes 2 Yes No YesT1 014 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 3 301 Middle 1.75 30 70 Yes 3 Yes No Yes FruitT1 015 Agonis flexuosa 6 1 115 Lower 1.25 35 65 Yes 2 No No No FruitT1 016 Agonis flexuosa 9 1 295 Middle/Upper 1.00 50 50 Yes 2 No No No Fruit DreyT1 017 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 2 282 Middle/Upper 1.50 30 70 Yes 1 Yes No No FruitT1 018 Agonis flexuosa 9.5 1 388 Upper 1.25 30 70 Yes 2 Yes No No New tag requiredT1 019 Agonis flexuosa 4.5 1 62 Lower 2.50 10 90 Yes 3 No No NoT1 020 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 2 201 Middle 1.75 30 70 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitT1 021 Agonis flexuosa 7.5-8 5 147 Middle 1.75 23 77 Yes 2 No No NoT1 022 Agonis flexuosa 4.5 1 100 Lower 1.50 27 73 Yes 1 No No NoT1 023 Agonis flexuosa 8.5-9 1 265 Middle/Upper 1.25 30 70 Yes 2 No No No FruitT1 024 Agonis flexuosa 8.5-9 2 265 Middle/Upper 1.25 30 70 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT1 025 Agonis flexuosa 6.5 3 111 Lower 2.00 20 80 Yes 2 No No Yes FruitT1 026 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 2 112 Lower/Middle 2.00 20 80 Yes 2 No No No FruitT1 027 Agonis flexuosa 7 2 96 Lower/Middle 2.50 10 90 Yes 3 Yes No YesT1 028 Agonis flexuosa 8 3 264 Middle 1.25 35 65 Yes 2 Yes No Yes FruitT1 029 Agonis flexuosa 8 4 150 Middle 1.50 30 70 Yes 2 No No No Fruit DreyT1 030 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 2 227 Middle/Upper 1.50 30 70 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT1 031 Agonis flexuosa 7 4 125 Lower/Middle 1.50 30 70 Yes 2 No No No FruitT1 032 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 2 212 Lower/Middle 1.75 27 73 Yes 2 No No No FruitT1 033 Eucalyptus sp. 7 1 237 Lower/Middle 1.00 60 40 Yes 4 No No No PossumT1 034 Agonis flexuosa 6.5 3 158 Lower 1.50 27 73 Yes 3 No No No FruitT1 035 Agonis flexuosa 6.5 1 154 Lower 1.50 30 70 Yes 2 Yes No Yes FruitT1 036 Melaleuca sp. 6 1 272 Lower 1.00 55 45 Yes 2 No No No DreyT1 037 Agonis flexuosa 8 2 211 Middle 2.00 20 80 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitT1 038 Agonis flexuosa 8 4 136 Middle 2.00 20 80 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitT1 039 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 3 252 Lower/Middle 1.75 25 85 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT1 040 Agonis flexuosa 6.5 1 192 Lower 2.00 20 80 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT1 041 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 3 237 Middle 1.75 32 68 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT1 042 Agonis flexuosa 7 1 209 Lower/Middle 1.00 35 65 Yes 1 No No No FruitT1 043 Agonis flexuosa 5.5 1 Lower 3.00 0 100 Yes 7 Yes No No FallenT1 044 Agonis flexuosa 8 2 210 Middle 2.50 15 85 Yes 5 Yes No Yes FruitT1 045 Agonis flexuosa 6 2 Lower 3.00 0 100 Yes 7 No No No FallenT1 046 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 1 156 Middle 1.50 30 70 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT1 047 Agonis flexuosa 8 2 338 Middle 3.00 5 95 Yes 7 Yes No No FruitT1 048 Agonis flexuosa 4 1 76 Lower 1.75 23 77 Yes 1 No No NoT1 049 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 3 198 Lower/Middle 1.50 32 68 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT1 050 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 3 269 Middle 1.50 30 70 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT1 051 Agonis flexuosa 8 3 104 Middle 1.50 30 70 Yes 1 No No No FruitT1 052 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 1 110 Middle 1.75 25 75 Yes 2 No No No FruitT1 053 Melaleuca sp. 2.2 1 100 Lower 1.00 60 40 Yes 1 No No No FlowersT1 054 Agonis flexuosa 9.5 2 150 Upper 2.00 20 80 Yes 4 Yes No No Fruit Broken branchesT1 055 Agonis flexuosa 8 2 294 Middle 3.00 10 90 Yes 5 Yes No Yes Fruit

CommentsPossums/ Dreys

Flowering/ Fruiting

Transect No. or

IndividualTag No. Species No. of

Trunks

Crown Dieback


2 of 4





Flowering/ Fruiting

Transect No. or


Trunks

Crown Dieback

T2 056 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 2 140 Lower/Middle 2.00 25 75 Yes 3 Yes No No Fruit New tag requiredT2 057 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 2 Lower/Middle 3.00 0 100 Yes 7 Yes No No Fallen T2 058 Agonis flexuosa 8 6 256 Middle 1.50 33 67 Yes 3 No No Yes FruitT2 059 Agonis flexuosa 10 4 352 Upper 1.50 35 65 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitT2 060 Agonis flexuosa 8 2 183 Middle 1.50 35 65 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT2 061 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 1 205 Middle/Upper 1.50 35 65 Yes 1 Yes No No FruitT2 062 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 1 265 Middle/Upper 1.50 30 70 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT2 063 Agonis flexuosa 9 1 219 Upper 1.50 30 70 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT2 064 Agonis flexuosa 9.5 4 307 Upper 1.75 25 75 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT2 065 Agonis flexuosa 8 1 246 Middle 1.50 30 70 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT2 066 Agonis flexuosa 8 1 297 Middle 1.75 27 73 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT2 067 Agonis flexuosa 7 1 296 Lower/Middle 2.00 20 80 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitT2 068 Agonis flexuosa 8 3 196 Middle 1.00 45 55 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitT2 069 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 1 311 Middle/Upper 1.75 27 73 Yes 3 No Yes No Fruit DreyT2 070 Agonis flexuosa 7 2 344 Lower/Middle 2.00 20 80 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitT2 071 Agonis flexuosa 8 3 444 Middle 1.75 30 70 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitT2 072 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 1 476 Middle/Upper 1.75 25 75 Yes 3 Yes No No Fruit Tag high on treeT2 073 Agonis flexuosa 8 1 520 Middle 2.00 20 80 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitT2 074 Agonis flexuosa 7.5-8 1 545 Middle 1.75 25 75 Yes 3 No No No FruitT2 075 Agonis flexuosa 7 1 311 Lower/Middle 2.00 25 75 Yes 2 No No Yes FruitT2 076 Agonis flexuosa 6.5 1 234 Lower 2.00 25 75 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT2 077 Agonis flexuosa 8 2 357 Middle 1.75 30 70 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT2 078 Agonis flexuosa 6 1 120 Lower 2.00 20 80 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT2 079 Agonis flexuosa 9 3 563 Upper 1.50 30 70 Yes 3 No No No FruitT2 080 Agonis flexuosa 5.5-6 2 185 Lower 1.50 30 70 Yes 1 Yes No No FruitT2 081 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 3 244 Lower/Middle 1.50 35 65 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT2 082 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 1 396 Lower/Middle 1.00 40 60 Yes 1 No No No FruitT2 083 Agonis flexuosa 5.5 3 152 Lower 1.25 30 70 Yes 2 No No No FruitT2 084 Agonis flexuosa 7 1 443 Lower/Middle 1.25 35 65 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitT2 085 Agonis flexuosa 7 1 411 Lower/Middle 1.75 27 73 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT2 086 Agonis flexuosa 7 1 389 Lower/Middle 1.50 30 70 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT3 087 Agonis flexuosa 7 2 164 Lower/Middle 1.50 30 70 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT3 088 Agonis flexuosa 8 3 625 Middle 1.50 35 65 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitT3 089 Agonis flexuosa 5 1 175 Lower 3.00 10 90 Yes 7 Yes No No Main trunk fallenT3 090 Agonis flexuosa 5 3 130 Lower 1.00 35 65 Yes 1 Yes No No FruitT3 091 Agonis flexuosa 8 2 399 Middle 1.50 30 70 Yes 2 Yes No No Fruit Dead possum at baseT3 092 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 1 233 Lower/Middle 2.00 20 80 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT3 093 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 1 122 Lower/Middle 1.50 30 70 Yes 2 No No Yes FruitT3 094 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 2 198 Lower/Middle 1.50 30 70 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT3 095 Agonis flexuosa 6 10 90 Lower 2.00 20 80 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitT3 096 Agonis flexuosa 5.5 2 98 Lower 2.00 25 75 Yes 1 Yes No No FruitT3 097 Agonis flexuosa 9.5 1 387 Upper 1.25 37 63 Yes 2 No No No FruitT3 098 Agonis flexuosa 9.5 4 269 Upper 1.00 45 55 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT3 099 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 1 261 Lower/Middle 1.50 32 68 Yes 2 Yes No Yes FruitT3 100 Agonis flexuosa 7 1 163 Lower/Middle 1.75 25 75 Yes 2 No No Yes FruitT3 101 Agonis flexuosa 7 2 330 Lower/Middle 1.50 35 65 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT3 102 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 2 361 Middle 2.25 20 80 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitT3 103 Agonis flexuosa 8 2 224 Middle 3.00 5 95 Yes 7 Yes No Yes FruitT3 104 Agonis flexuosa 10 1 443 Upper 2.75 15 85 Yes 5 Yes No No FruitT3 105 Agonis flexuosa 7 1 169 Lower/Middle 3.00 0 100 Yes 7 No No NoT3 106 Agonis flexuosa 8 1 314 Middle 2.50 15 85 Yes 4 No No Yes FruitT3 107 Agonis flexuosa 5 3 173 Lower 1.50 35 65 Yes 2 Yes No Yes FruitT3 108 Agonis flexuosa 7 2 188 Lower/Middle 3.00 0 100 Yes 7 No No NoT3 109 Agonis flexuosa 7 3 135 Lower/Middle 2.50 15 85 Yes 4 No No No FruitT3 110 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 2 248 Middle/Upper 1.25 40 60 Yes 2 Yes No No Fruit PossumT3 111 Agonis flexuosa 6.5 1 279 Lower 1.00 45 55 Yes 1 Yes No No FruitT3 112 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 5 456 Middle/Upper 1.00 45 55 Yes 2 Yes No No Fruit Drey & PossumT3 113 Agonis flexuosa 7 7 183 Lower/Middle 1.25 35 65 Yes 1 No No No Fruit


3 of 4





Flowering/ Fruiting

Transect No. or


Trunks

Crown Dieback

T4 114 Agonis flexuosa 10 3 452 Upper 1.25 45 55 Yes 2 No No No FruitT4 115 Agonis flexuosa 9.5 1 444 Upper 1.00 50 50 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT4 116 Agonis flexuosa 10 1 Upper 3.00 0 100 Yes 7 Yes No NoT4 117 Agonis flexuosa 10 3 148 Upper 1.75 30 70 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitT4 118 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 4 255 Middle/Upper 1.25 35 65 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT4 119 Agonis flexuosa 9 5 132 Upper 1.75 35 65 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitT4 120 Agonis flexuosa 8 2 198 Middle 2.00 20 80 Yes 2 Yes No Yes FruitT4 121 Agonis flexuosa 8 1 225 Middle 1.50 30 70 Yes 2 Yes No Yes FruitT4 122 Agonis flexuosa 8 5 78 Middle 1.75 27 73 Yes 2 Yes No No Fruit Missing trunk?T4 123 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 3 316 Middle/Upper 3.00 15 85 Yes 5 Yes No No FruitT4 124 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 1 272 Middle/Upper 1.50 25 75 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT4 125 Agonis flexuosa 9.5 1 405 Upper 1.75 30 70 Yes 3 Yes No Yes FruitT4 126 Agonis flexuosa 10 6 200 Upper 1.25 42 58 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT4 127 Agonis flexuosa 9.5 6 104 Upper 1.50 40 60 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitT4 128 Agonis flexuosa 9 3 122 Upper 1.75 27 73 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT4 129 Agonis flexuosa 7 6 345 Lower/Middle 1.75 25 75 Yes 2 Yes No No Fruit Dead possumT4 130 Agonis flexuosa 9 3 204 Upper 1.00 45 55 Yes 1 Yes No No FruitT4 131 Agonis flexuosa 6.5 1 190 Lower 2.50 15 85 Yes 3 No No YesT4 132 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 3 124 Lower/Middle 2.50 15 85 Yes 3 Yes No NoT4 133 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 3 388 Middle/Upper 1.25 47 53 Yes 3 No No No FruitT4 134 Agonis flexuosa 7 2 223 Lower/Middle 1.25 40 60 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT4 135 Agonis flexuosa 10 1 338 Upper 1.25 40 60 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT4 136 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 2 295 Lower/Middle 1.75 30 70 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitT4 137 Agonis flexuosa 10 2 387 Upper 1.00 45 55 Yes 2 No No No FruitT4 138 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 3 110 Lower/Middle 1.75 30 70 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitI 143 Agonis flexuosa 6.5 1 202 Lower 1.25 30 70 Yes 2 No No No FruitI 144 Agonis flexuosa 6 2 200 Lower 1.00 50 50 Yes 1 No No No FruitI 146 Agonis flexuosa 5 1 168 Lower 2.00 20 80 Yes 2 No No NoI 147 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 1 454 Middle 1.50 35 65 Yes 2 No No No FruitI 148 Agonis flexuosa 6.5 1 230 Lower 1.00 45 65 Yes 2 No No No FruitI 149 Agonis flexuosa 5 1 353 Lower 2.25 20 80 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitI 150 Agonis flexuosa 6.5 5 231 Lower 1.00 55 45 Yes 1 No No No Fruit DreyI 175 Agonis flexuosa 4.5 3 160 Lower 2.00 30 70 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitI 176 Agonis flexuosa 6 2 152 Lower 1.00 65 35 Yes 1 No No No Fruit DreyI 177 Agonis flexuosa 5 1 228 Lower 1.50 30 70 Yes 2 No No No Fruit DreyI 178 Agonis flexuosa 5 2 150 Lower 1.00 55 45 Yes 1 Yes No No FruitI 183 Agonis flexuosa 6 2 152 Lower 1.00 45 55 Yes 1 Yes No No FruitI 184 Agonis flexuosa 5 1 117 Lower 1.00 50 50 Yes 1 Yes No No Fruit Drey & Possum I 187 Agonis flexuosa 6 4 120 Lower 1.00 40 60 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitI 188 Agonis flexuosa 8 3 189 Middle 1.00 40 60 Yes 2 No No No FruitI 204 Agonis flexuosa 8 1 354 Middle 2.25 20 80 Yes 3 Yes No No Fruit Middle bareI 205 Agonis flexuosa 5.5 1 260 Lower 1.00 45 55 Yes 1 Yes No No Fruit DreyI 206 Agonis flexuosa 6 1 243 Lower 1.00 45 55 Yes 1 No No No FruitI 207 Agonis flexuosa 6.5 1 595 Lower 1.25 45 55 Yes 2 Yes No No Fruit New tag requiredI 208 Agonis flexuosa 6.5 2 200 Lower 2.00 25 75 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitI 209 Agonis flexuosa 6 1 398 Lower 1.75 30 70 Yes 2 No No No FruitI 210 Agonis flexuosa 6 1 418 Lower 1.75 27 73 Yes 2 No No No FruitI 211 Agonis flexuosa 6 2 311 Lower 1.25 35 65 Yes 3 No No No FruitI 212 Agonis flexuosa 4.5 1 382 Lower 1.00 50 50 Yes 2 No No No FruitI 214 Agonis flexuosa 9 1 765 Upper 1.25 50 50 Yes 3 No No No FruitI 215 Agonis flexuosa 8 1 325 Middle 1.75 28 72 Yes 3 No No No FruitI 216 Agonis flexuosa 8 1 581 Middle 1.00 45 55 Yes 2 No No No FruitI 217 Agonis flexuosa 7 1 203 Lower/Middle 1.00 45 55 Yes 2 No No No FruitI 218 Agonis flexuosa 7 2 Lower/Middle 1.25 45 55 Yes 1 No No No FruitI 219 Agonis flexuosa 4 2 142 Lower 1.25 30 70 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitI 220 Agonis flexuosa 8 2 255 Middle 1.25 32 68 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitI 221 Agonis flexuosa 8 3 910 Middle 1.00 40 60 Yes 3 Yes Yes No Fruit


4 of 4





Flowering/ Fruiting

Transect No. or


Trunks

Crown Dieback

I 222 Agonis flexuosa 7 2 234 Lower/Middle 1.00 33 67 Yes 1 No No No FruitI 223 Agonis flexuosa 7 2 258 Lower/Middle 1.25 35 65 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitI 224 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 1 625 Lower/Middle 2.25 20 80 Yes 3 No No No Fruit New tag requiredI 225 Agonis flexuosa 7 1 335 Lower/Middle 1.00 45 55 Yes 1 No No Yes FruitI 226 Agonis flexuosa 8 4 351 Middle 1.00 40 60 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitI 227 Agonis flexuosa 8 1 204 Middle 1.25 40 60 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitI 228 Agonis flexuosa 7 4 168 Lower/Middle 1.00 45 55 Yes 1 No No No FruitI 229 Agonis flexuosa 5 2 185 Lower 1.00 40 60 Yes 2 Yes No No Fruit Still limb on ground I 230 Agonis flexuosa 5 3 187 Lower 1.25 32 68 Yes 2 No No No Fruit Drey & PossumI 231 Agonis flexuosa 5.5 4 121 Lower 1.00 45 55 Yes 1 No No No FruitI 232 Agonis flexuosa 5 1 149 Lower 1.00 40 60 Yes 1 No No No Fruit New tag requiredI 233 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 2 499 Middle/Upper 1.75 30 70 Yes 2 No No No FruitI 234 Agonis flexuosa 12 1 524 Upper 1.25 40 60 Yes 2 No No No FruitI 235 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 2 229 Middle/Upper 1.00 40 60 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitI 236 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 1 371 Middle/Upper 1.25 35 65 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitI 237 Agonis flexuosa 9 2 142 Upper 1.00 40 60 Yes 2 Yes No No Fruit PossumI 238 Agonis flexuosa 10.5 3 306 Upper 1.25 35 65 Yes 2 No No No FruitI 239 Agonis flexuosa 10 2 275 Upper 1.25 35 65 Yes 2 No No No FruitI 240 Agonis flexuosa 6 1 213 Lower 1.75 23 77 Yes 2 No No No FruitI 241 Agonis flexuosa 10 2 400 Upper 2.00 25 75 Yes 3 Yes No Yes FruitI 242 Agonis flexuosa 10 2 333 Upper 1.50 27 73 Yes 2 No No Yes FruitI 243 Agonis flexuosa 9 1 317 Upper 1.25 30 70 Yes 2 No No No FruitI 244 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 3 195 Middle/Upper 1.75 25 75 Yes 3 Yes No No Fruit New tag requiredI 245 Agonis flexuosa 8 2 134 Middle 1.50 30 70 Yes 2 No No No FruitI 246 Agonis flexuosa 8 1 327 Middle 1.00 40 60 Yes 2 No No No FruitI 247 Agonis flexuosa 7 1 202 Lower/Middle 1.50 38 62 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitI 248 Agonis flexuosa 9 1 335 Upper 2.00 27 73 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitI 249 Agonis flexuosa 10 3 443 Upper 1.00 55 45 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitI 250 Agonis flexuosa 8 6 258 Middle 1.00 55 45 Yes 2 Yes No No Fruit New tag requiredI 251 Agonis flexuosa 9.5 6 89 Upper 1.25 45 35 Yes 4 No No No FruitI 252 Agonis flexuosa 6 4 245 Middle 1.50 40 60 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitI 253 Agonis flexuosa 10 6 278 Upper 1.75 35 65 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitI 254 Agonis flexuosa 9.5 2 468 Upper 2.25 25 75 Yes 4 No No No FruitI 255 Agonis flexuosa 9 5 255 Upper 2.00 25 75 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitI 256 Agonis flexuosa 11 7 184 Upper 1.50 45 55 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitI 257 Agonis flexuosa 9.5 1 695 Upper 1.50 38 62 Yes 2 Yes Yes No FruitI 258 Agonis flexuosa 8 8 391 Middle 1.25 40 60 Yes 2 No No No Fruit DreyI 259 Agonis flexuosa 10 1 625 Upper 2.00 27 73 Yes 3 No No No FruitI 260 Agonis flexuosa 10 7 280 Upper 1.50 32 68 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitI 261 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 3 155 Middle 1.75 30 70 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitI 262 Agonis flexuosa 7 1 186 Lower 1.50 30 70 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitI 263 Agonis flexuosa 11.5 5 98 Upper 2.25 25 75 Yes 4 Yes No No Fruit Dead leavesI 264 Agonis flexuosa 10.5 7 86 Upper 1.75 30 70 Yes 3 Yes No No Fruit DreyI 265 Agonis flexuosa 11 7 244 Upper 2.25 20 80 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitI 266 Agonis flexuosa 11 3 323 Upper 1.75 30 70 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitI 267 Agonis flexuosa 9 2 395 Upper 3.00 10 90 Yes 5 Yes No No FruitI 268 Agonis flexuosa 9 5 235 Upper 1.25 35 65 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitI 269 Agonis flexuosa 10 1 539 Upper 1.75 27 73 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitI 270 Agonis flexuosa 5 1 181 Lower 2.00 20 80 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitI 271 Agonis flexuosa 5.5 3 182 Lower 1.00 40 60 Yes 1 Yes No No FruitI 272 Agonis flexuosa 8.5 1 240 Middle 1.00 40 60 Yes 2 Yes No Yes FruitI 273 Agonis flexuosa 11.5 5 343 Upper 1.00 55 45 Yes 2 Yes No No FruitI 274 Agonis flexuosa 7 1 312 Lower 1.50 35 65 Yes 3 No No No FruitI 275 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 1 316 Middle 1.50 35 65 Yes 3 No No No Fruit Limb trimmingI 276 Agonis flexuosa 5 1 187 Lower 2.00 22 78 Yes 3 Yes No No FruitI 277 Agonis flexuosa 6.5 1 153 Lower 1.75 30 70 Yes 2 No No No FruitI 279 Agonis flexuosa 6.5 1 730 Lower 2.00 27 73 Yes 2 No No No FruitI 280 Agonis flexuosa 7.5 3 439 Middle 1.00 45 55 Yes 2 Yes No Yes FruitI 281 Agonis flexuosa 6 2 147 Lower 1.50 35 65 Yes 2 Yes No No Fruit Dead possumI 282 Agonis flexuosa 5 1 188 Lower 2.50 15 85 Yes 3 Yes No No Fruit

Note: insects present 'yes' blue font refers to borers, 'yes' red font refers to termites, 'yes' green font refers to termites and borers.

Appendix C - Monthly rainfall total (January 2010 to February 2016)

Appendix C

Monthly rainfall totals and Mean monthly rainfall

Appendix D - Number and percentage of trees recorded in each crown dieback category for all

autumn monitoring events

Appendix D

Number and percentage of trees recorded in each crown dieback category for all autumn tree health events


No. of Trees (%)

Transect 1 Transect 2 Transect 3

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

1 (0-5%) 16

(29) 8 (15) 14 (25) 2 (4) 3 (5) 7 (13) 7 (23) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 2 (6) 3 (9) 11 (41) 2 (15) 7 (26) 0 (0) 6 (22) 4 (15)

2 (6-10%) 9 (16) 15

(27) 10 (18) 27 (49) 23 (42) 27 (49) 8 (26) 11 (35) 11 (35) 19 (61) 10 (32) 14 (44) 6 (22) 13 (48) 10 (37) 13 (48) 11 (41) 13 (48)

3 (11-20%) 15

(27) 11

(20) 15 (27) 17 (31) 21 (38) 12 (22) 9 (29) 8 (26) 16 (52) 10 (32) 18(58) 13 (41) 5 (19) 5 (19) 4 (15) 7 (26) 4 (15) 3 (11)

4 (21-40%) 9 (16) 12

(22) 11 (20) 4 (7) 4 (7) 4 (7) 6 (19) 9 (29) 3 (10) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (15) 2 (7) 4 (15) 4 (15) 2 (7) 2 (7)

5 (41-60%) 2 (4) 2 (4) 0 (0) 1 (2) 0 (0) 2 (4) 0 (0) 2 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (4) 2 (7) 0 (0) 1 (4) 1 (4) 1 (4)

6 (61-80%) 1 (2) 1 (2) 2 (4) 2 (4) 2 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0)

7 (81-100%) 3 (5) 6 (11) 3 (5) 3 (5) 2 (4) 3 (5) 1 (3) 1 (3) 1 (3) 1 (3) 1 (3) 1 (3) 0 (0) 1 (4) 2 (7) 1 (4) 3 (11) 4 (15)


No. of Trees (%)

Transect 4 Individual Combined

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

1 (0-5%) 7

(28) 4 (16) 2 (8) 4 (16) 2 (8) 1 (4) 75 (49) 44 (29) 31 (34) 24 (26) 21 (23) 15 (16)

116 (40)

60 (21) 54 (23) 31 (13) 34 (15) 30 (13)

2 (6-10%) 6

(24) 6 (24) 14 (56) 13 (52) 8 (32) 14 (58) 45 (30) 53 (35) 35 (38) 39 (42) 31 (34) 47 (51) 74 (26) 98 (34) 80 (35) 111 (48) 83 (36)

115 (50)

3 (11-20%) 8

(32) 10 (40) 5 (20) 5 (20) 12 (48) 8 (33) 15 (10) 40 (26) 17 (18) 20 (22) 38 (41) 26 (28) 52 (18) 74 (26) 57 (25) 59 (26) 93 (40) 62 (27)

4 (21-40%) 3

(12) 3 (12) 2 (8) 1 (4) 1 (4) 0 (0) 12 (8) 8 (5) 6 (7) 8 (9) 2 (2) 3 (3) 34 (12) 34 (12) 26 (11) 17 (7) 9 (4) 9 (4)

5 (41-60%) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4) 0 (0) 4 (3) 5 (3) 1 (1) 1 (1) 0 (0) 1 (1) 7 (2) 11 (4) 1 (1) 3 (1) 2 (1) 5 (2)

6 (61-80%) 1 (4) 1 (4) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (1) 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (1) 3 (1) 3 (1) 3 (1) 2 (1) 0 (0)

7 (81-100%) 0 (0) 1 (4) 2 (8) 2 (8) 1 (4) 1 (4) 1 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (2) 10 (3) 9 (4) 6 (3) 7 (3) 9 (4)

Brackets indicate the percentage of each value for each category and transect.

Appendix E - SpecTerra Services – Busselton Hospital Change Detection March 2015 – March 2016

Appendix F - SpecTerra Services – Busselton Hospital Change Detection March 2011 – March 2016

department of health autumn 2016 tree health monitoring€¦ · appendix b - tree health data...

Documents