tree survey report mitcham reserve survey at mitcham reserve – august 2015 _____ 6 | page managing...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
3 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
4 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
5 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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 Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
6 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
7 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
• 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 Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
8 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
9 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
10 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
11 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
12 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
13 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
14 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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 Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
15 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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 Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
16 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
17 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
18 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
19 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
20 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
21 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
22 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
23 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
24 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
25 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
26 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
27 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
28 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
29 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
30 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
31 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
• 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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
32 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
• 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
Tree Survey at Mitcham Reserve – August 2015 ________________________________________________________
33 | P a g e Managing trees in the urban landscape
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
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