17 smith street daylesford vegetation assessment and ......17 smith st daylesford vegetation...

17 Smith Street Daylesford

Vegetation Assessment

and Native Vegetation Removal Report

Prepared for Hygge Property Prepared by: Mark Trengove Ecological Services 2200 Geelong-Ballan Rd Anakie PO Box 1502 Geelong 3220 [email protected] ph 0428 298087 August 2019

17 Smith St Daylesford Vegetation Assessment MTES August 2019 2

Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Aims ..................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Study Area ........................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................. 5

2 Survey Methods ........................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Taxonomy ............................................................................................................................ 7 2.2 Literature and Database Review ......................................................................................... 7 2.3 Field methodology vegetation assessment ......................................................................... 7 2.4 Limitations ........................................................................................................................... 7 2.5 Defining Vegetation Significance ......................................................................................... 8 2.6 Defining and Assessing Native Vegetation .......................................................................... 8

3 Results ......................................................................................................................... 9 3.1 Ecological Vegetation Class ................................................................................................. 9 3.2 Flora ................................................................................................................................... 10

3.2.1 Indigenous Plant Species .............................................................................. 10

3.2.2 Exotic Plant Species ..................................................................................... 10

3.2.3 Significant Plant Species .............................................................................. 10

3.2.4 Condition of the Vegetation ......................................................................... 11

3.3 State Native Vegetation Permitted Clearing Regulations ................................................. 12 3.3.1 Description ................................................................................................... 12

3.3.2 Patch Native Vegetation ............................................................................... 13

3.3.3 Scattered Tree Native Vegetation ................................................................ 13

3.4.4 No Net Loss Implications ............................................................................. 15

Figure 6 Offset Requirements ............................................................................... 16

3.4 Commonwealth ................................................................................................................. 17 3.4.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) ....... 17

3.5 ESO1 PROCLAIMED CATCHMENT PROTECTION ................................................................ 18 3.5 ESO2 MINERAL SPRINGS AND GROUNDWATER PROTECTION .......................................... 19

4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 20

5 References ................................................................................................................. 21 Appendix 1 - Assessing conservation significance ................................................................... 22 Appendix 2 Native vegetation removal report ........................................................................ 23 Appendix 3 Determining the Tree Protection Zone ................................................................ 33 Plates 1–2 Vegetation existing conditions .............................................................................. 34


Document History Version Date Prepared by Draft 11 June 2019 Mark Trengove Final 9 August 2019 Mark Trengove

Mark Trengove Ecological Services PO Box 1502 Geelong 3220

[email protected]

ph 0428 298087 Copyright © Mark Trengove Ecological Services This document is subject to copyright and may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned. The use of this document in whole or part without the permission of Mark Trengove Ecological Services is an infringement of copyright. Disclaimer Although Mark Trengove Ecological Services have taken all the necessary steps to ensure that an accurate document has been prepared, no liability is accepted for any damages or loss incurred as a result of reliance placed upon the report or its contents.


1 Introduction 1.1 Project Background

This report was commissioned Hygge Property undertake an ecological assessment for the proposed new residence at 17 Smith Street Daylesford. Under Clause 52.17 of the Victorian Planning Scheme, the State has gazetted the Native Vegetation Permitted Clearing Regulations. The regulations ‘introduce a risk based approach to assessing applications to remove native vegetation’ (DELWP Website vi). Refer to Section 3.3 for further discussion.

1.2 Aims

The aims of the study are to -

• Determine the extent of any indigenous vegetation that exists in the study area.

• Describe the vegetation of the study area.

• Undertake an assessment of any native vegetation (patch or scattered tree) that may be impacted on by the proposal.

• Respond to relevant legislation (Clause 52.17 and ESO1).

• Prescribe offset requirements for the removal of native vegetation from the study area.

1.3 Study Area

The subject site consists of approximately 4.8 hectares of land located at 17 Smith Street Daylesford. The study area is the entire property. The study area is located within the Hepburn Shire Council, which is located within in the North Central Catchment Management Authority area. The study area is within the Central Victorian Uplands bioregion (DELWP website i). Under the Hepburn Planning Scheme, the study area is zoned General Residential Zone (GRZ1) and is subject to Environment Protection Overlay 1 (ESO1) and Environment Protection Overlay 2 (ESO2). The vegetation of the study area can be described as follows:

• Disturbed with predominately exotic plant species.

• Partially intact native vegetation, being mature Eucalyptus and Acacia trees. Refer to Figure 1 for the location of the study area.


Figure 1. Study area location and 10 metre contour intervals.

1.4 Potential Impacts

The area of potential impact is comprised of proposed new residential sub-division. Although some native vegetation will be retained, it is assessed that a permit to remove native vegetation will be required as appropriate permanent protection of the native vegetation cannot be achieved given the restraints of the proposal. Refer to Figure 2 for the proposed sub-division layout.


Figure 2. Proposed sub-division.


2 Survey Methods 2.1 Taxonomy

Scientific names for plants follow the Flora of Victoria (RBG website). Common names for plants follow the Flora of Victoria Vols 2-4 (Walsh and Entwisle 1994-1999).

2.2 Literature and Database Review

Relevant literature, online resources and databases were reviewed to provide an up to date assessment of ecological values associated with the study area and surrounds, including:

• The Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) NVIM tool (DELWP website i) for:

o Modelled data for remnant vegetation patches and habitat for rare or threatened species and

o the extent of historic and current Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVC)s

• The Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (VBA) (DELWP website iv) for previously documented flora and fauna records within the project locality (to approximately 10 kilometres of the study area)

• Aerial photography of the study area (Google maps).

2.3 Field methodology vegetation assessment

The site was inspected on foot on the 22nd of May 2019. The entire site was traversed. Records were taken of all indigenous vascular plant species. Observations were made of the existing habitat values and dominant exotic vascular plant species.

2.4 Limitations

The assessment was conducted during autumn, a time of year that is suitable for the detection of most flora species likely to occur on site. Due to the mostly degraded nature of the study area and the favourable conditions for survey, the site inspection is considered to be sufficient to assess the ecological values of the proposed impact site. As a result, there are not considered to be any significant limitations to the finding of the study. The survey includes only vascular flora. As Habitat Hectare assessments were not required (refer to 3.3) non-vascular flora (mosses, lichens, fungi, etc.) were not recorded.


2.5 Defining Vegetation Significance

A number of criteria are applied in order to assess the significance of flora species and vegetation communities. The definition of the criteria is detailed in Appendix 1.

2.6 Defining and Assessing Native Vegetation

Native vegetation in Victoria has been defined by DELWP as belonging to two categories. These are: Patch native vegetation A patch of native vegetation is either:

• any area of vegetation where at least 25 per cent of the total perennial understorey plant cover is native

• any area with three or more native canopy trees where the canopy foliage cover is overlapping.

Scattered tree native vegetation A scattered tree is:

• a native canopy tree that does not form part of a patch. Habitat hectares Habitat hectares (Vegetation Quality Assessment) is a site-based measure that combines extent and condition of native vegetation. The current condition of native vegetation is assessed against a benchmark for its Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC). EVCs are classifications of native vegetation types. The benchmark for an EVC describes the attributes of the vegetation type in its mature natural state, which reflects the pre-settlement circumstances. The condition score of native vegetation at a site can be determined through undertaking a habitat hectare assessment. The habitat hectares of native vegetation is calculated by multiplying the current condition of the vegetation (condition score) by the extent of native vegetation. (DELWP Website vi).


3 Results 3.1 Ecological Vegetation Class

Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs) are the primary level of classification of vegetation communities within Victoria. An EVC contains one or more plant (floristic) community and represents a grouping of vegetation communities with broadly similar ecological attributes. The EVC mapping of the study area undertaken by DELWP (DELWP website i) indicates that the study area and immediate surrounds contains vegetation that aligns with the characteristics of EVC 23 Herb-rich Foothill Forest. The current survey recorded native vegetation that accords with EVC 23 Herb-rich Foothill Forest for the proposed development site. The bioregional conservation status of EVC 23 Herb-rich Foothill Forest is ‘Depleted’. Depleted is defined as and EVC where between 30-50% of pre-european extent remains. Refer to Figure 3 for the distribution of pre 1750 EVCs (DELWP website i). Refer below (3.3) for further discussion.

Figure 3. Distribution of pre 1750 EVCs (DELWP data).


3.2 Flora 3.2.1 Indigenous Plant Species

A total of 2 indigenous (native) vascular plant species were recorded for the study area. Refer to Table 1 for a list of indigenous vascular plant species; including conservation significance recorded this survey. Refer to Table 2 for a list of exotic vascular plant species recorded this survey. Refer to Plates 1-6 for photographs of the vegetation existing conditions. Table 1 Indigenous plant species, conservation significance and vegetation type recorded this assessment.

Botanical Name Common Name Status Vegetation type

Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood Local Patch

Eucalyptus viminalis Manna Gum Local Scattered tree

Status Local- Local conservation significance

3.2.2 Exotic Plant Species

Table 2 Dominant Naturalised Exotic Plant Species recorded this assessment.

Botanical Name Common Name

Agrostis capillaris Creeping Bent-grass

Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernal Grass

Circuim vulgare Spear Thistle

Dactylis glomeratus Cock’s-foot Grass

Holcus lanatus Yorkshire Fog-grass

Hypochaeris radicata Flat-weed

Phalaris aquatica Canary-grass

Pittosporum undulatum Sweet Pittosporum

Rubus fruiticosus spp. agg. Blackberry

3.2.3 Significant Plant Species

The 2 recorded native plant species are assessed to be of Local conservation significance. Refer to Table 1 and Appendix 1.


3.2.4 Condition of the Vegetation

The vegetation of the study area is described as follows:

• Partially intact native vegetation. This vegetation covers small sections of the study area. it is comprised of two mature Manna Gum specimens and two mature Blackwood specimens.

• Relatively degraded exotic vegetation. This vegetation occurs across the majority of the study area (the former farming land) and is dominated by pasture grasses and ruderal weeds, Exotic garden plantings and exotic specimen trees also occur.


3.3 State Native Vegetation Permitted Clearing Regulations 3.3.1 Description

Under Particular Provision (Native Vegetation Clause 52.17) the State has gazetted the Native Vegetation Permitted Clearing Regulations. The Regulations introduce a risk based approach to assessing applications to remove native vegetation (DELWP website vi). The objective for the permitted clearing of native vegetation (refer to 2.6) is that it results in no net loss. This means permitted clearing has a neutral impact on Victoria’s biodiversity. When native vegetation removal is permitted, an offset must be secured which achieves a no net loss outcome for biodiversity. To achieve this, the offset makes a contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity that is equivalent to the contribution made by the native vegetation that was removed. The type and amount of offset required depends on the native vegetation being removed and the contribution it makes to Victoria’s biodiversity. Under the Native Vegetation Permitted Clearing Regulations, any ‘patch’ or ‘scattered tree’ native vegetation that is proposed to be removed is subject to protection/and or recruitment offsets, depending upon the characteristics of the site. Refer to Figure 4 for the distribution of vegetation in the study area according to ‘Location’.

Implications for the current proposal are discussed as follows.


Figure 4. Distribution of vegetation according to ‘Location’. Light green equates to ‘Location 1’ (i.e. least risk) (DELWP Website i). The study area is sited within Location 1.

3.3.2 Patch Native Vegetation Under the Native Vegetation Permitted Clearing Regulations, any areas of patch native vegetation that are proposed to be removed are subject to protection/and or recruitment offsets, depending upon the characteristics of the site. Two areas of patch native vegetation were recorded for the study area (two Blackwood trees). Both trees are located along the existing driveway plantation and are potentially able to be retained. However due to site constraints, a permit will be required for vegetation removal (Refer to Figure 5 and Plate 2).

3.3.3 Scattered Tree Native Vegetation

Under the Native Vegetation Permitted Clearing Regulations, any scattered native canopy trees that are proposed to be removed are subject to protection/and or recruitment offsets, depending upon the characteristics of the site. Within the CVU bioregion, EVC 23 has Eucalyptus spp as ‘canopy trees’. Two occurrences of scattered tree native vegetation were recorded for the study area (two Manna Gum trees) Both trees are located together on the eastern sloping sector (Refer to Figure 5 Plate 1). Due to site constraints, a permit will be required for vegetation removal.


Refer to Table 3 for scattered tree data including DBH and TPZ calculations. Table 3 Scattered trees

Tree # Botanical Name DBH (cm) TPZ (m) Status Removal

A Eucalyptus viminalis 1710 20.5 ST To be removed.

B Eucalyptus viminalis 2130 25.6 ST To be removed.

Table 3. Scattered trees, botanical name, diameter at breast height (DBH), status (scattered tree), tree protection zone (TPZ) and implications for Clause 52.17. Tree protection zones are calculated in accordance with Australian Standard AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites. Refer to Appendix 3. Two scattered trees, located on the subject property, are assessed as being removed.

Figure 5. Location of the native vegetation.


3.4.4 No Net Loss Implications

Topographic and land information The impact site is relatively flat to gently sloping with no obvious erosion. There are no waterways or drainage lines. Previous clearing No clearing of native vegetation has occurred within the last 5 years. Defendable space The proposed clearing is not to create defendable space. Avoid and minimise Vegetation clearance cannot be avoided; however, impacts are minimised by site selection. The site selected has relatively poor native vegetation diversity, large trees are to be retained and has a relatively high cover value of weed species. An area of relatively degraded native vegetation is exploited, thereby minimizing impacts. The subject land is zoned for residential purposes, and is located within the Daylesford Structure Plan’s identified township boundary, earmarked for future residential development. The subdivision layout has created lot sizes which align with Council’s preferred density of the area, with an effort to avoid any detrimental impact upon the manna gums. However, given the large size of these trees and the layout of the lots, the formal protection area required for these trees is very large and their ‘loss’ of value is considered inevitable. Thus, the Manna gums will be required to be removed, and will be offset accordingly. The patches of vegetation along the existing driveway may be able to be retained within the proposed lots, and this will be determined upon more detailed design phase.

Offset Implications As native vegetation is proposed to be impacted on, there are implications for the Native Vegetation Permitted Clearing Regulations. A total of 0.107 ha of native vegetation is proposed to be removed. In keeping with the Regulations, the DELWP NVIM tool is utilised to generate a Native vegetation removal report (Report ID 329-0809-008) to determine offset requirements (refer to Appendix 2). The application is an Intermediate Assessment Pathway application. Assuming a permit for removal of the above identified native vegetation was granted, the offset requirements for that removal would be the generation of 0.041 general biodiversity equivalence units, with a minimum strategic biodiversity score of 0.150, to be achieved within the North Central CMA or Hepburn Shire Council region, plus two large trees. Refer to Figure 6 for a summary of offset requirements. Refer to Appendix 2 for the Native vegetation removal report.


Achieving offsets.

Vegetation offsets are to be achieved by 3rd party offset purchase. There is reasonable assurance that offset will be available.

Figure 6 Offset Requirements

Figure 6. Summary of offset requirements


3.4 Commonwealth 3.4.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999)

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act (1999) was established to ‘promote the conservation of biodiversity by providing strong protection for listed species and communities in the Commonwealth and for protected areas, Ramsar sites, Commonwealth Reserves, conservation zones and World Heritage sites, etc.’ No listed EPBC Act ecological communities or species are recorded for the study area.

Implications

The removal of <0.5 ha of native vegetation would not require referral under the EPBC Act as the amount of vegetation removal would be too small to trigger a referral as a controlled action. Consequently, there is not considered to be any implications for the current proposal under the EPBC Act.


3.5 ESO1 Proclaimed Catchment Protection

Environmental objective to be achieved

To protect the quality of domestic water supplies within the Shire and the broader region.

To maintain and where practicable enhance the quality and quantity of water within watercourses.

To prevent increased runoff or concentration of surface water leading to erosion or siltation of watercourses.

To prevent erosion of banks, streambeds adjoining land and siltation of watercourses, drains and other features.

To prevent pollution and increased turbidity and nutrient levels of water in natural watercourses, water bodies and storages. (http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/hepburn/ordinance/42_01s01_hepb.pdf)

Implications Under ESO1 a permit will be not be required for the removal of vegetation as the vegetation is less than 1 ha and is greater than 30 from a waterway.


3.5 ESO2 Mineral Springs and Groundwater Protection

Environmental objective to be achieved

To protect the mineral springs, their aquifers and their environs from the impacts of effluent and drainage.

To protect water bores that provide town water supply.

(http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/hepburn/ordinance/42_01s02_hepb.pdf)

Implications It is assessed that the removal of native vegetation, as proposed, is unlikely to impact upon the values of ESO2.


4 Conclusions

The subject site consists of approximately 4.8 hectares of land located at 17 Smith Street Daylesford. The study area is the entire property. This report finds that the proposed impact site is partly comprised of partially intact native vegetation that accords with EVC 23 Herb-rich Foothill Forest. The bioregional conservation status of EVC 45 Shrubby Foothill Forest is ‘depleted’. Two locally significant native plant species were recorded by this assessment. The vegetation of the study area can be described as follows:

• Disturbed with predominately exotic plant species.

• Partially intact indigenous vegetation, being predominately mature trees (patch and scattered tree native vegetation).

A planning permit would be required from the Hepburn Shire Council to remove the native vegetation identified that is proposed to be impacted on. Assuming a permit for removal of the identified native vegetation was granted, the offset requirements for that removal would be the generation of 0.041 general habitat units, with a minimum strategic biodiversity score of 0.150, to be achieved within the North Central CMA or Hepburn Shire region plus 2 large trees. The removal would be assessed as an ‘Intermediate assessment pathway’ application. A permit to remove areas of native vegetation the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1988) would not be required as the native vegetation is on private land. Removal of the vegetation of the study area would not have implications for the relevant Commonwealth (i.e. EPBC Act) legislation. A permit for the removal of vegetation will not be required under ESO1. There are no significant limitations to the findings of this report.


5 References Conn, B J (1993). Natural regions and vegetation of Victoria. Pp. 79-158 In Foreman, D B and Walsh, G (eds.) ‘Flora of Victoria Volume 1: Introduction.’ Inkata Press, Melbourne. DELWP. Planning Maps Online: Interactive map. https://nvim.delwp.vic.gov.au/Biodiversity Victorian Department of Land, Environment Water and Planning, Melbourne, VIC. DELWP. Victorian Biodiversity Atlas: Interactive map. https://vba.dse.vic.gov.au/vba/.. Victorian Department of Land, Water and Planning, Melbourne, VIC. DELWP. Native Vegetation Information Management tool. https://nvim.delwp.vic.gov.au/.. DELWP. https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/native-vegetation/native-vegetation Department of Department of Land, Environment Water and Planning, Melbourne, VIC. http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/schemes/hepburn Google maps, 2019. https://www.google.com.au/maps/ Flora of Victoria Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne https://vicflora.rbg.vic.gov.au North Central Catchment Management Authority ‘North Central Native Vegetation Plan’ NCCMA Website. Walsh, N G & Entwisle, T (1994-1999): ‘Flora of Victoria Vol 2-4' Inkata Press, Melbourne. Oates, A. & Taranto, M. (2001). ‘Vegetation Mapping of the Port Phillip & Westernport Region’ Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, DNRE, Victoria. Parkes, D., Newell, G. & Cheal, D. (2003). ‘Assessing the Quality of Indigenous Vegetation: The Habitat Hectares Approach’ Parks, Flora & Fauna Division, DNRE, Victoria. Standards Australia (2009). Protection of trees on development sites. AS4970-2009. Standards Australia Ltd Sydney.

https://vba.dse.vic.gov.au/vba/

https://nvim.delwp.vic.gov.au/

https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/native-vegetation/native-vegetation

https://vicflora.rbg.vic.gov.au/


Appendix 1 - Assessing conservation significance

Conservation significance is assessed at a range of scales, including global, international, national, state, regional and local. Criteria used for determining the conservation significance of flora at national to local scales are presented below for botanical and zoological conservation significance. Botanical Significance National botanical significance applies to an area when it supports one or more of the following attributes: a population of at least one nationally threatened plant species listed by Briggs and Leigh (1996) or plant species listed on the schedules to the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. A nationally threatened ecological community listed on the schedules of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. State botanical significance applies to an area when it supports one or more of the following attributes: A population of at least one plant species threatened in Victoria, as listed by Gullan et al. (1990), NRE (2000a) or more recently in the unpublished records of the Flora Information System (NRE), or on the schedules to the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. An ecological community considered threatened in Victoria through its listing on the schedules of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. Regional botanical significance applies to an area that supports one or more of the following attributes: Supports a population of one or more regionally depleted species defined in a valid regional assessment of biodiversity (eg. Regional Native Vegetation Plan, Environment Conservation Council Report or Comprehensive Regional Assessment documents). An ecological vegetation class that is considered endangered or vulnerable in a particular bioregion (based on Conn 1993 and the Regional Native Vegetation Plan), in which case the area is of High Regional significance. An ecological vegetation class that is considered depleted in a particular bioregion (based on Conn 1993 and the Regional Native Vegetation Plan), in which case it is of Regional significance. Local botanical significance applies to all remnant native vegetation that does not meet the above criteria. In much of Victoria native vegetation has been so depleted by past clearing and disturbance that all remaining vegetation must be considered to be of at least local conservation significance.


Appendix 2 Native vegetation removal report


Appendix 3 Determining the Tree Protection Zone

Determining the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) The radium of the TPZ is calculated for each tree by multiplying its DBH x 12. TPZ = DBH x 12 (Australian Standard AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites) Where DBH = trunk diameter measured at 1.4 metres above ground. Radius is measured from the centre of the stem at ground level. A TPZ should not be less than 2 metres no greater than 15 metres (except where crown protection is required.). Some instances may require variations to the TPZ. A tree is deemed to be impacted upon if greater than 10% of the TPZ area is to be disturbed. Indicative Size of Tree Protection Zone

Tree Trunk

Tree Canopy

Edge of Tree Protection

Zone

Outer edge of Tree

Protection Zone x metres

(DBH x 12) from centre of

tree


Plates 1–2 Vegetation existing conditions

Plate 1. Manna Gum scattered trees.

Plate 2. Blackwood patch native vegetation (second tree from front).

APPENDIX D – ARBORIST REPORT

Elms Horticulture, David Elms GradCert Arb, Dip Hort, 11 Boolarong dve, Belmont, Victoria, 3216, Ph. 0407 843 078, [email protected]

Elms Horticulture

Arboricultural/Horticultural Consultancy ABN 9168 0663 603

Preliminary Arboricultural Report

17 Smith Street Daylesford, Victoria


Background

1.1 This inspection was done at the request of Mr Joseph van Dyk, Director – Hygge Property. 1.2 The trees are located throughout the property at 17 Smith Street, Daylesford, Victoria. The

property is within the Hepburn Shire. 1.3 The property is approximately 4.5 hectares in size. 1.4 This inspection was to identify and assess the trees, provide their location, species, dimensions,

age, useful life expectancy, health and structural condition, and their suitability for retention on this site as part of a potential development.

1.5 There is an Environmental Significance Overlay for this site, which also includes ESO schedules 1 & 2. ESO schedule 1 covers the removal of trees on the site.

1.6 The trees were assessed and this report was prepared by Mr David Elms, a qualified Arborist (AQF8) who has been working in the horticulture industry for over 30 years.

1.7 The inspection was a visual ground based inspection only. Only trees over 3m in height were assessed.

1.8 Inspections were conducted on the 27th May and 1st June 2019. 2.0 The Trees

2.1 There were 64 trees inspected as for this report. 47 of the trees were located on the actual site of 17

Smith Street, the remaining 17 trees were located in neighbouring properties. 2.2 The trees were a mix of native and exotic trees. Of the 47 trees on the property only 4 trees appear

to be possible remnant vegetation, the remainder appear to all be planted vegetation. 3.0 Observations/Conclusions

3.1 Data from the inspection of the 64 trees can be found in Table 1 – Field Assessment and Table 2 –

Tree Retention/Protection. 3.2 Tree 1 although of good health and structure is located in the middle of the proposed entrance and

will most likely require removal to accommodate the driveway. 3.3 The eucalypts and elms along the current driveway are nearly all in poor to hazardous structurally

and would be best being removed. 3.4 The trees immediately around the house (22 – 31) are generally in good structural condition and

health. 3.5 Tree 32 has been heavily and poorly pruned which will result in a decline in health of the tree over

the next few years. 3.6 The oaks along the northern property boundary (trees 33 & 38) are both good specimens for this

species of tree. 3.7 The 2 large Manna gums in the centre of the paddock to the east of the dwelling both have shed

significant limbs and have a number of suspected or observed defects such as cavities. 3.8 The 2 large manna gums located on the southern boundary of the same paddock as trees mentioned

in 3.7 are more worthy of retention due to their habitat value and the ability to create an exclusion zone around the base of the trees. Both these trees have rubbish that has been dumped around the base and this rubbish would require careful removal so as not to damage the trees.

3.9 The remainder of the trees not already mentioned so far are in various conditions structurally and in health.

3.10 In my professional opinion the removal of any trees on this property would not compromise the quality of any water supply, aquafer, increase erosion or run off or increase pollution, turbidity or nutrient levels in water courses, bodies or storages as mentioned in ESO schedule 1.


4.0 Recommendations

4.1 Trees 33, 38 (Oaks) should both be considered for retention as they are of suitable condition both structurally and health wise and are of excellent aesthetic value to the site. Crown lifting would allow better access under these trees.

4.2 Trees 43 and 44 (Manna Gums) appear to both be remnant indigenous vegetation and are both of high aesthetic and habitat value. Carefully removing the dumped rubbish from around the base of these trees and mulching the entire TPZ within the property so as to create an exclusion zone under the trees is highly recommended.

4.3 Other trees to consider if possible for retention would be tree 1 (oak), tree 26 (chestnut) and tree 27 (Cedar)

4.4 All Ulmus (elm) should have the stumps poisoned and temporarily left before grinding to help prevent suckering from the root system. This includes trees 11, 17, 19 & 21.

4.5 All neighbouring trees must be protected from damage during development of the site as set out in AS 4970/2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites. The Tree protection zones for these trees as shown in table 2 should be noted and no excavation be carried out within the TPZ of these trees.

4.6 All trees to be retained should be protected from damage as set out in the Australian Standard – AS 4970-2009 Protection of Trees on development sites. These zones are to protect the tree both above and below ground.

4.7 Further tree protection measures as set out in AS 4970-2009 which are listed below must also be put in place during development of the site.

4.8 Where possible all underground services that are required within the site should be bought in by directional drilling at a depth of 600mm deep as far as possible rather than using trenching methods. All sub-contractors such as Electrician and Plumbers should be aware of this

4.9 All trees shall have temporary site fencing that is recommended at a minimum of 1.8m high and with shade cloth or similar material attached to it to protect the trees from damage. These fences should have signs attached identifying the area as a tree protection zone and a contact name and number for the site manager or project arborist should the fence require moving. Approval must be given before any fence can be moved. The area within this fence should be mulched with mulched with a woodchip material to a depth between 50&100mm deep to further help reduce stress on the tree.

4.10 These barriers should remain in place until handover is occurring and all other trades have vacated the site.

4.11 The following activates are not permitted within the TPZ for any of the trees on this nature strip – Machine excavation including trenching (excluding work as described in 4.2) Excavation for silt trenching Cultivation Storage Preparation of Chemicals, including cement products Parking of vehicles and plant Refuelling Dumping of waste Wash down and cleaning of equipment Placement of fill Lighting of fires Soil level changes Temporary or Permanent installation of utilities and signs Physical damage to the tree

4.12 Any pruning of existing trees that are chosen to be retained should be done to Australian Standard AS 4373-2007, Pruning of Amenity Trees by a qualified arborist.


5.0 References

Australian Standard 4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites Australian Standard 4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees

6.0 Definitions

Age: Expected life span of tree Category Description

Young Juvenile or recently planted tree, 1-7 Yrs in age. Less than 20% of expected life span

Semi Mature Tree is in active growth phase of its life, still has not reached expected physical size for its species/location

Mature The tree has reached its expected physical size

Over Mature / Senescent Tree is approaching the end of its life and is beginning to show signs of decline

Health: A trees vigour as exhibited by crown density & cover, leaf colour, presence of epicormic shoots, ability to withstand pests & diseases and degree of dieback Category Description

Excellent Canopy full with even foliage density throughout, leaves are entire and are of excellent size and colour for the species. Excellent growth indicators. No pest or disease present

Good Canopy full with minor variations in foliage density throughout, leaves are entire and are of good size for the species with minimal or no visible pest or disease damage. Good growth indicators. No or minimal deadwood

Fair Canopy with moderate variations in foliage density throughout, leaves not entire with reduced size and/or atypical in colour, moderate pest or disease damage. Reduced growth indicators, visible amounts of deadwood, canopy may contain epicormic growth

Poor Canopy density significantly reduced throughout, leaves are not entire, are significantly reduced in size and/or are discoloured, significant pest or disease damage present. Significant amounts of deadwood and/or epicormic growth, noticeable dieback of branch tips, possible extensive

Dead No live plant material evident throughout canopy. Bark may be delaminating from the trunk or branches

Structure: The structure of the tree from root to crown Category Description

Good Sound Branch attachments with no visible structural defects. No visible wounds to the trunk and/or root plate. No visible fungal pathogens (decay/rot) present.

Fair Minor structural defects in limbs. Minor damage to trunk and/or roots e.g. mower strike. Small wounds present but no apparent fungal pathogens present

Poor Significant structural defects present such as bifurcations with included bark with possible union failure within 5 years. Minor lateral splits within limbs. Wounding evident with cavities and decay present. Damage to structural roots, particularly within SRZ or girdling roots. Decay/Rot present

Hazardous Severe structural defects with failure imminent. Defects include large lateral splits, horizontal cracking and partial root plate failure. Tree requires immediate work


Definitions …… DBH – Diameter at breast height, refers to the trunk measurement taken at 1.4m from the ground for a single trunked tree. SULE – Safe useful life expectancy of the tree TPZ – Tree protection zone, as defined in AS4970-2009 ‘Protection of Trees on Development Sites. TPZ is calculated by multiplying the DBH x 12An area around the tree where use is limited both above and below ground to protect the wellbeing of the tree. SRZ – Structural root zone, as defined in AS4970-2009 ‘Protection of Trees on Development Sites. Is calculated by measuring the diameter at the base (D) of the tree then applying the following formula. SRZ radius = (Dx50)0.42 x 0.64. SRZ is the area required for tree stability. This area around the tree is where no work can be carried out. Branch Attachment – the structural linkage of branch to another branch or the trees trunk Bifurcation – the division of branches or roots into 2 parts of similar dimensions and from the same point. Also known as co-dominant Coppice: A mass of epicormic shoots arising from heavy pruning, usually from the stump Leader: A structural branch asserting apical dominance Crown Lifting: Pruning to remove branches from the lower crown, usually for clearance or access Defect – any structural weakness or deformity Epicormic – shoots which form as a result of a latent or adventitious bud Girdling Root – a root which circles and constricts the stem or roots causing death of the phloem and/or cambial tissue Included Bark – pattern of development at a branch junction where bark is turned inwards rather than pushed out, causing a potential failure point. Phototropic lean: a natural lean by the tree, usually towards a light source Sounding: Tapping of roots, trunk or branches with a mallet to sample acoustic resonance to compare soundwood with wood that is decayed or hollow Topping: Removal of the upper parts of the tree, reducing its height by lopping. Usually not done in modern arboriculture as it increases the chances of premature decline of the tree. Torsional Crack: A crack or split in a limb or trunk caused by a twisting action of the limb, usually while under load Target area – people or property that would potentially be affected if a tree or part of the tree were to fail


7.0 Disclaimer Unless otherwise stated, this report is based from a ground based visual tree assessment. Some

defects may be hidden from view of the inspector from the ground or may be below ground. The inspector cannot detect every condition that could cause the tree/s to fail.

This report is written using information gathered from observations by the inspector as well as information provided at the time of inspection by the trees owner.

Trees are living organisms and their health and structure can be affected by many different factors. Tree reports are not indefinite, trees should be re-inspected on a regular basis.

It is the client’s choice whether they choose to accept or disregard any recommendations found in this report.

It is the client’s responsibility to arrange for any work listed in the recommendations to be carried out including any re-inspections.

This report must be read in its entirety. At no time shall any part of this report be referred to unless it is taken into the full context of the

whole report. If this report is to be used in a court of law or a legal situation, Elmshorticulture must first be

advised in writing prior to the report being presented in any form to another party. While the inspector has some specific knowledge regarding some local laws it is the clients

responsibility to obtain the relevant approvals from local government before any work commences.

At no time will David Elms be held responsible for the compliance to any relevant local or state government law arising from recommendations contained in this report or for the standard of work carried out on the tree completed by other persons.

Report by David Elms, 6/6/2019


Table 1 – Field Assessment

No. Genus Species Common Name DBH Height Age Structure Health SULE Comments

1 Quercus robur English Oak 113 12-24m Mature Good Good 40 + Years

Would require uplifting and some deadwood removal

2 Eucalyptus leucoxylon Yellow Gum 31 3-6m Semi Mature Poor Good

5-10 years

Coppiced tree. top has snapped out leaving no proper leader


5-10 years coppiced tree

4 Eucalyptus leucoxylon Yellow Gum 33 6-12m Semi Mature Fair Good

10-20 Years

Southern primary scaffold limb has large wound from previous failure.


5-10 years

Has lost leader. All epicormic regrowth. decay in trunk

6 Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood 44 6-12m Mature Fair Good 5-10 years

numerous acute branch angles with potential for major limb failure

7 Eucalyptus leucoxylon Yellow Gum 25 6-12m Semi Mature Fair Fair

5-10 years Numerous pruning events. some die back of limbs

8 Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar 10 0-3m Young Good Good

40 + Years Young tree

9 Eucalyptus leucoxylon Yellow Gum 26 6-12m Semi Mature Fair Fair

5-10 years some die back in limbs

10 Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood 36 6-12m Mature Hazardous Fair 0-5 Years

large torsional crack in trunk and split in nearby primary scaffold limb

11 Ulmus procera English Elm 116 12-24m Over Mature Hazardous Fair

5-10 years Large recent failure in lower trunk. Decay present.

12 Eucalyptus leucoxylon Yellow Gum 12 3-6m Semi Mature Fair Poor

5-10 years

Considerable die back in limbs. cankerous wounds evident



13 Eucalyptus leucoxylon Yellow Gum 16 3-6m Semi Mature Fair Poor

5-10 years some die back in limbs

14 Ulmus procera English Elm 72 6-12m Over Mature Hazardous Poor

5-10 years

Tree appears to have failed in the centre and reshot new limbs. Pocket of decay down centre of tree evident. sounding does not indicate decay is too thick

15 Eucalyptus leucoxylon Yellow Gum 12 0-3m Semi Mature Poor Fair

5-10 years Coppiced tree.

16 Eucalyptus leucoxylon Yellow Gum 35 3-6m Semi Mature Fair Good

10-20 Years tree heavily pruned over driveway

17 Ulmus procera English Elm 62 6-12m Semi Mature Poor Fair

5-10 years

Appears to have been topped or had major trunk failure. Numerous pockets of decay and wound sites present.

18 Eucalyptus leucoxylon Yellow Gum 12 3-6m Young Poor Fair 5-10 years

Has re-shot from base. Heavily pruned over driveway. poor specimen

19 Ulmus procera English Elm 85 12-24m Mature Hazardous Poor 0-5 Years

Large pocket of decay in trunk evident. Sounding and probing indicate insufficient holding wood in trunk. high risk of tree failing at trunk

20 Acacia longifolia Sallow Wattle 18 3-6m Mature Poor Fair

5-10 years numerous wounds in trunk indicating decay

21 Ulmus procera English Elm 87 12-24m Mature Poor Fair 5-10 years

Wound in trunk indicates pocket of decay. sounding shows sufficient holding wood

22 Aesculus hippocastanum Horse Chestnut 36 3-6m

Semi Mature Good Good

10-20 Years

23 Betula pendula Silver Birch 11 3-6m Semi Mature Good Good

10-20 Years



10-20 Years multi trunked from base



10-20 Years





10-20 Years

27 Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar 154 25m+ Mature Fair Good

10-20 Years

28 Cupressus sempervirens Italian Cypress 105 25m+ Mature Fair Good

10-20 Years


Semi Mature Poor Fair

5-10 years Decay in trunk evident. borer evident in trunk

30 Malus domestica Apple multi 0-3m Semi Mature Poor Good

5-10 years Decay in trunk.

31 Citrus x limon Lemon 12 0-3m Semi Mature Fair Fair

10-20 Years

32 Jaglans spp. Walnut 72 6-12m Mature Poor Fair 10-20 Years Heavily pruned on school side of tree

33 Quercus robur English oak 105 12-24m Mature Fair Good 20-40 Years requires some dead wooding

34 Acer opalus Italian Maple 6 0-3m Young Poor Fair

5-10 years very poor specimen

35 Jaglans spp. Walnut 15 3-6m Semi Mature Fair Fair

10-20 Years has maple suckers growing up around base of trunk

36 Acer opalus Italian Maple 82 6-12m Mature Fair Fair

10-20 Years

37 Acer opalus Italian Maple 110 12-24m

Semi Mature Fair Poor

10-20 Years heavy suckering from base

38 Quercus robur English oak 108 12-24m Mature Fair Good 20-40 Years would require some dead wooding and uplifting


Over Mature Hazardous Fair

0-5 Years Trunk extensively hollow. high risk of collapse

40 Eucalyptus viminalis Manna Gum 177 25m+ Mature Poor Fair 20-40 Years

Possible pocket of decay mid trunk. numerous limb failures resulting in some large wounds



41 Eucalyptus viminalis Manna Gum 211 25m+ Mature Hazardous Fair 5-10 years

Large cavity visible through main vertical trunk. Numerous very large limb failures leaving large wounds back into trunk.

42 Corymbia spp Flowering Gum 40 3-6m Mature Fair Good

10-20 Years

43 Eucalyptus viminalis Manna Gum 155 12-24m Over Mature Poor Fair

10-20 Years

Numerous cavities and wound sites. Important habitat tree. Canopy is thinning. isolate around TPZ and retain

44 Eucalyptus viminalis Manna Gum 112 12-24m Over Mature Poor Good

10-20 Years

Phototropic lean in trunk. Numerous wound sites. Retain for habitat value.

45 Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood 50 6-12m Mature Fair Good 10-20 Years

46 Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar 22 3-6m Young Good Good

20-40 Years

47 Acer opalus Italian Maple 12 3-6m Young Fair Fair

10-20 Years

48 Betula spp. Birch 25 3-6m Semi Mature Fair Fair

10-20 Years

X 4 trees. all with wounding to trunk, possible decay/cavity’s

49 Eucalyptus viminalis Manna Gum 65 12-24m Mature Fair Good 20-40 Years wound site in trunk from limb failure

50 Betula spp. Birch 35 3-6m Semi Mature Fair Fair X 15 trees. all with wounding in trunks

51 Pittosporum tennuifolium Pittosporum multi 3-6m Mature Poor Fair 5-10 years decay at base

52 Fraxinus spp. Ash multi 3-6m Mature Poor Fair 5-10 years decay at base

53 Pittosporum tennuifolium Pittosporum 60 6-12m Over Mature Poor Fair

5-10 years Dieback in upper canopy. Heavily lopped.

54 Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood 30 3-6m Mature Fair Fair 5-10 years located in School yard



55 Eucalyptus viminalis Manna Gum 55 12-24m Semi Mature Fair Fair

10-20 Years Located in School yard



20-40 Years 2 trees growing with 1m of each other

57 Abies pinsapo Spanish Fir 100 12-24m Mature Fair Fair 10-20 Years


59 Abies pinsapo Spanish Fir 100 12-24m Mature Fair Good 10-20 Years

60 Abies pinsapo Spanish Fir 100 12-24m Mature Fair Good 10-20 Years


62 Eucalyptus tricarpa Ironbark 90 6-12m Mature Fair Good 20-40 Years

63 Populus spp. Poplar 55 12-24m Semi Mature Fair Good

10-20 Years

64 Populus spp. Poplar 55 12-24m Semi Mature Fair Good

10-20 Years


Table 2 – Tree Retention/Protection

Tre

e N

o.

Genus Species

Common Name Dia

me

ter

@ B

reas

t H

eigh

t (c

m)

Tre

e P

rote

ctio

n Z

on

e (

m)

Stru

ctu

ral R

oo

t Zo

ne

(m

)

Hei

ght

(m)

Source Wo

rth

Re

tain

ing

1 Quercus robur English Oak 113 13.6 3.5

12-24m Exotic Consider

2 Eucalyptus leucoxylon Yellow Gum 31 3.7 2.0 3-6m Locally Indigenous No




6 Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood 44 5.3 2.3 6-12m Locally Indigenous No


8 Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar 10 1.2 1.3 0-3m Exotic No



11 Ulmus procera English Elm 116 13.9 3.5

12-24m Exotic No



14 Ulmus procera English Elm 72 8.6 2.9 6-12m Exotic No



17 Ulmus procera English Elm 62 7.4 2.7 6-12m Exotic No



Tre

e N

o.

Genus Species Common Name Dia

me

ter

@ B

reas

t H

eigh

t

(cm

)

Tre

e P

rote

ctio

n Z

on

e (

m)

Stru

ctu

ral R

oo

t Zo

ne

(m

)

Hei

ght

(m)

Source Wo

rth

Re

tain

ing


12-24m Exotic No

20 Acacia longifolia Sallow Wattle 18 2.2 1.6 3-6m Locally Indigenous No


12-24m Exotic No

22 Aesculus hippocastanum Horse Chestnut 36 4.3 2.2 3-6m Exotic No

23 Betula pendula Silver Birch 11 1.3 1.3 3-6m Exotic No



26 Aesculus hippocastanum Horse Chestnut 42 5.0 2.3 6-12m Exotic Consider

27 Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar 154 18.5 4.0 25m+ Exotic Consider

28 Cupressus sempervirens Italian Cypress 105 12.6 3.4 25m+ Exotic No


30 Malus domestica Apple multi 2.0 1.5 0-3m Exotic No

31 Citrus x limon Lemon 12 1.4 1.4 0-3m Exotic No

32 Jaglans spp. Walnut 72 8.6 2.9 6-12m Exotic No

33 Quercus robur English oak 105 12.6 3.4

12-24m Exotic Yes

34 Acer opalus Italian Maple 6 0.7 1.0 0-3m Exotic No

35 Jaglans spp. Walnut 15 1.8 1.5 3-6m Exotic No


37 Acer opalus Italian Maple 110 13.2 3.4

12-24m Exotic No


Tre

e N

o.


me

ter

@ B

reas

t H

eigh

t (c

m)

Tre

e P

rote

ctio

n Z

on

e (

m)

Stru

ctu

ral R

oo

t Zo

ne

(m

)

Hei

ght

(m)

Source Wo

rth

Re

tain

ing

38 Quercus robur English oak 108 13.0 3.4

12-24m Exotic Yes


12-24m Exotic No

40 Eucalyptus viminalis Manna Gum 177 21.2 4.2 25m+ Locally Indigenous No

41 Eucalyptus viminalis Manna Gum 211 25.3 4.5 25m+ Locally Indigenous No

42 Corymbia spp Flowering Gum 40 4.8 2.3 3-6m Australian Native No

43 Eucalyptus viminalis Manna Gum 155 18.6 4.0

12-24m Locally Indigenous Yes




46 Cedrus deodara Deodar Cedar 22 2.6 1.8 3-6m Exotic No


48 Betula spp. Birch 25 3.0 1.8 3-6m Exotic Yes



50 Betula spp. Birch 35 4.2 2.1 3-6m Exotic Yes

51 Pittosporum tennuifolium Pittosporum multi 3.0 1.5 3-6m Exotic Yes

52 Fraxinus spp. Ash multi 6.0 2.5 3-6m Exotic Yes

53 Pittosporum tennuifolium Pittosporum 60 7.2 2.7 6-12m Exotic Yes

54 Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood 30 3.6 2.0 3-6m Locally Indigenous Yes


Tre

e N

o.


me

ter

@ B

reas

t H

eigh

t (c

m)

Tre

e P

rote

ctio

n Z

on

e (

m)

Stru

ctu

ral R

oo

t Zo

ne

(m

)

Hei

ght

(m)

Source Wo

rth

Re

tain

ing




12-24m Exotic Yes

57 Abies pinsapo Spanish Fir 100 12.0 3.3

12-24m Exotic Yes


12-24m Exotic Yes


12-24m Exotic Yes


12-24m Exotic Yes


12-24m Exotic Yes

62 Eucalyptus tricarpa Ironbark 90 10.8 3.2 6-12m Locally Indigenous Yes

63 Populus spp. Poplar 55 6.6 2.6

12-24m Exotic Yes

64 Populus spp. Poplar 55 6.6 2.6

12-24m Exotic Yes


Appendix 1 – Site Plan


Appendix 2 – AS4970-2009 extracts

17 smith street daylesford vegetation assessment and ......17 smith st daylesford vegetation...

Documents