Council archive · source document
Attachment 4 -Arborist Report July 2020 · OPW20/0145
ARBORIST REPORT 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville Lot 3 on SP246584 July 2020 Report No. J23177 V2
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of the other 18 pages
Page 2
For the Attention of Harry Hurst, Stockwell
Property Address 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
Land Size TBA
Prepared by Peter Mumford – Managing Director
Diploma of Horticulture (Arboriculture)
QTRA Licence No. 3026
Enviro Development Professional
Member – Queensland Arborist Assoc. (QAA)
Member – Arboriculture Australia
Member – Intl. Soc. Arboriculture (ISA)
Member – Landscape Queensland
Company Details Arbor Operations
t: (07) 3861 9933
e: [email protected]
w: www.arboroperations.com.au
ABN: 29 539 962 906
Introduction
Harry Hurst of Stockwell has requested a revised report on trees, as directed with a view to retain a group of
trees to the east of the subject site located.
A Level 5 Arborist Report has been compiled from a visual inspection conducted from the ground only, with no
soil or tissue sampling undertaken. A description of the condition of the trees with recommendations have been
provided as to the suitability for retention and or removal of the subject trees.
All tree work should be carried out in accordance with Australian and International Pruning Standards AS4373-
2007 and the Australian Standard, Protection of Trees on Development Sites AS 4970-2009.
Arbor Operations QLD Pty Ltd is a member of the Queensland Arboricultural Association (QAA), International
Society of Arboriculture (ISA), Arboriculture Australia, The Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA)
Enviro Development Professionals and Members of Landscape Queensland.
Arborist Report for 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
Prepared by Arbor Operations – July 2020
2|P a g e
Page 3
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Site Plan .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Tree Analysis: Disturbance footprint ...................................................................................................... 6
Tree Removal and Retention plan ........................................................................................................ 11
Project Arborist Guidelines ................................................................................................................... 12
Classification and Tree Description....................................................................................................... 14
Process Descriptions ............................................................................................................................. 15
General Terms ....................................................................................................................................... 16
Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) ................................................................................................................... 17
Structural Root Zone (SRZ) (AS 4970-2009) .......................................................................................... 18
Reference Literature & Methodology ................................................................................................... 19
Arborist Report for 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
Prepared by Arbor Operations – July 2020
3|P a g e
Page 4
Site Plan
Arborist Report for 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
Prepared by Arbor Operations – July 2020
4|P a g e
Page 5
Subject Site Map
Arborist Report for 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
Prepared by Arbor Operations – July 2020
5|P a g e
Page 6
Tree Analysis: Disturbance footprint
Observations and Considerations
The vegetation currently occupying the site is aged between 40 to 50-years old, with a few older remnant trees that were
retained when the site was cleared. Tree species observed include, but not limited to, Eucalyptus resinifera (Red Mahogany),
Syncarpia glomulifera subsp. glomulifera (Turpentine), Corymbia intermedia (Pink Bloodwood), Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp
Mahogany), Melaleuca quinquenervia (Broadleaf Paperbark) Eucalyptus grandis (Flooded Gum) and Lophostemon confertus
(Brush Box). Lophostemon suaveolens (Swamp Box) were a less frequent canopy species. Less common tree species included
Eucalyptus grandis and Eucalyptus microcorys (Tallowwood). Some areas were also dominated by dense regrowth of
Allocasuarina littoralis (Coast She-oak) in areas which have been previously disturbed.
Area Located adjacent to proposed lots
The fringe of the cleared area consists of, but not limited to, spindly regrowth Melaleuca quinquenervia. The clearing works
has and will alter the exposure of the newly created boundary trees, exposing them to environmental forces which they
have not developed to withstand. Numerous subjects have failed due to windthrow, due to insufficient root mass and/or
soil water levels at above field capacity. Saturated soils lose their adhesive qualities and root plates fail by way of a transverse
shear of the plate or ball.
Further examples of windthrow failure are from those subjects with tall slender structures, their height diameter (H/D)
ratios above 50. High H/D ratios have a higher probablity of failure due to the loading of the stem higher than prescribed by
the axiom of uniform stress (Mattheck, C. 2007). There are also numerous long over-extended lower lateral branches
present, which may also fail due to the length to diameter (l/D) ratio when exposed to additional wind forces due to removal
of co-located trees.
Dead trees are also present in varied states of deline and/or degradation within 10m of the the new boundary lines, carparks
and/or footpaths. Deadwood and/or sections of the dead crowns are fall hazard risk to the fringes and/or footpaths to be
constructed.
It is also proposed to cut soil on Lot 2. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) would be applicable to retained EMT vegetation along
the Hoffman Drive boundary.
Environmental Considerations
Retained trees have developed symbiotically with the subject to be retained along the boundaries as identified in layout of
retained vegetation highlighted in purple fringes on page 13. These specimens rely on the subjects adjacent for shelter from
the wind forces. These specimens are not listed as threatened or endangered under the Nature Conservation Act and its
regulations.
Recommendation
1. Appoint a project Arborist.
2. Adopt project Arborist guidelines as indicated on Page 12.
3. Appoint a suitably qualified Fauna Spotter Catchcer to underake a pre and post clearing report.
4. Undertake a pre-start meeting to identify and mark clearing lines.
5. Undertake supervised clearing works.
6. Remove trees along the fringe with a higher probability of failure with H/D ratios over 50, as identified by the
project Arborist. Works within the EMT and boundary line shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified AQF Level 3
Arborist in a manner so as not to damage retained vegetation and certified by the project Arborist.
7. Remove dead trees within 10m of the boundary of the EMT zone within failure reach of the boundary. These works
are to be undertaken by a suitably qualified AQF Level 3 Arborist and supervised by the project Arborist.
8. Remove major deadwood within 10m of the boundary of the Emt zones within failure reach of the boundary or
proposed footpath. These works are to be undertaken by a suitably qualified AQF Level 3 Arborist and supervised
by the project Arborist.
Priority Classification
Medium
Arborist Report for 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
Prepared by Arbor Operations – July 2020
6|P a g e
Page 7
Photo 1: Western fringe lots 13 14,15, Photo 2: Typical fringe failure
Photo 3: Western fringe lots 13 14,15 Photo 4: Typical fringe failure
Arborist Report for 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
Prepared by Arbor Operations – July 2020
7|P a g e
Page 8
Photo 5: Typical fringe failure Photo 6: Typical root plate fringe failure
Photo 7: Typical fringe failure Photo 8: Boundary markers
Arborist Report for 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
Prepared by Arbor Operations – July 2020
8|P a g e
Page 9
Photo 1: One sided crown and H/’D Photo 2: Fringe Environment exposure
ratios > 50 failure risk is high
Photo 3: EMT Zone J to north Photo 4: Major deadwood over footpath
Arborist Report for 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
Prepared by Arbor Operations – July 2020
9|P a g e
Page 10
Photo 5: Dead tree Photo 6: View east along proposed
footpath route boundary
Covenant J
Photo 7: Dead tree Photo 8: View along proposed footpath
route boundary Covenant J
Arborist Report for 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
Prepared by Arbor Operations – July 2020
10 | P a g e
Page 11
Tree Removal and Retention Plan
Arborist Report for 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
Prepared by Arbor Operations – July 2020
11 | P a g e
Page 12
Project Arborist Guidelines
1. Appoint an AQF Level 5 project Arborist.
2. Installation of TPZ fencing as indicated on page 16. Where work requires access to the TPZ these works
shall be supervised and approved by the project Arborist.
3. Any work within the TPZ shall be approved and supervised by the project Arborist.
4. An aged forest mulch shall be applied to the non-hard paved surfaces within the TPZ, not more than 75-
100mm in depth to protect any raised roots.
5. Installation for lighting and underground services shall require excavation by non-invasive methods
including, but not limited to, vacuum methods and hand digging. Work shall be supervised by the project
Arborist.
6. Where cranes and/or concrete pumps are to be used, an appropriate Crown Protection Zone (CPZ) shall
apply.
7. Machine movements may be required within the TPZ. The use of rumble board or a raft of sleepers tied
together or the use of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) ground protection mats (such as, but not limited
to, Alturnamats) shall be placed on top of the aged forest mulch and shall be used to ensure construction
traffic doesn’t adversely compact the soil profile and damage shallow root growth.
8. Skidding of earthmoving equipment should not be required, however should construction methods
change, movement should be kept to a minimum within the TPZ, be planned, approved and supervised by
the project Arborist.
9. Should roots require severance outside the SRZ, severance shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified
Arborist and approved by the project Arborist. Roots shall be clean cut by a high pressure water jet and/or
hand saw. A systemic fungicide shall be applied, such as
Fongarid 250g/kg Furalaxyl systemic fungicide, or;
Phosacid 250g/L systemic fungicide, or;
Natural Liquid Microbial Inoculant such as but not limited to Companion® that contains the active
ingredient Bacillus subtilis GB03 which is a rhizosphere bacterium. The bacterium establishes
beneficial colonies on the plant’s roots. It stimulates healthier roots, accelerates growth and
activates the defence system of the plant. This should be applied as per label recommendations.
10. Any exposed roots shall be kept hydrated and covered from exposure to the sun with hessian.
11. No storage of demolition waste and/or building material shall be allowed within the TPZ.
12. Landscaping shall maintain a mulched, or planted, or grassed area suitable for purpose within the TPZ.
Should the grassed areas require replacement soil for landscape works, it shall be to the AS4419. Soil
profiles cannot be lowered given the presence of shallow feeder roots. A mulched area is preferred to
assist in root protection, reduce soil compaction and enhance water percolation within the TPZ.
13. Apply bio-stimulants such as Mega Kelp at 2% by volume of water, as a root drench , monthly for the
duration of the project to the area within the TPZ, to stimulate feeder root development both prior to
mulching and/or top dressing.
14. There shall be no uncontrolled discharge of concrete slurry within the TPZ. Where concrete is to be poured
for concrete pads and/or paths within the TPZ, there shall be a plastic sleeve used to shield leachate into
the soil profile.
15. There shall be no site office storage of building materials and/or staging areas within the TPZ.
Arborist Report for 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
Prepared by Arbor Operations – July 2020
12 | P a g e
Page 13
Layout retained vegetation
Arborist Report for 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
Prepared by Arbor Operations – July 2020
13 | P a g e
Page 14
Classification and Tree Description
Age
Young Juvenile tree between 1 – 5 years
Early-mature Tree is still growing (6 years to 15 years)
Semi-mature Tree is still growing (over 15 years to 25 years, depending on the species)
Mature Species has reached expected size
Senescent Over mature (tree has reached its useful life expectancy) and in decline
Dead Tree is dead
Appearance
Excellent Exceptional specimen. Crown full and balanced. Foliage is entire with good colour. Minimal or no pathogen
damage.
Good Crown is full (can be unbalanced). Foliage is entire with good colour. Minimal or no pathogen damage.
Fair Tree has < 30% deadwood. Canopy may be unbalanced. Foliage generally with good colour, however may
have some discolouration present. Minor pathogen damage present (typical for species in location).
Poor Tree has >30% deadwood. Foliage may be discoloured or distorted and stress symptoms may be apparent
that could lead to decline of tree.
Dead Tree is dead.
Structure
Excellent Excellent branch attachment, no structural defects. Trunk sound. No damage to roots and good root
buttressing present.
Good Good branch attachment and or no minor structural defects. Trunk sound or minor damage. No damage to
roots and or good buttressing.
Fair Some minor structural defects and or minor damage to trunk. Bark may be missing & cavities could be
present. Minor damage to roots.
Poor Major structural defects and or trunk damage and or girdling or damaged roots that are problematic.
D.B.H. Diameter at Breast Height, measured at between 1.4 and 1.9m above the ground.
Priority Classification
Imminent Failure This tree is a health and safety risk and could fail at any time. It is recommended that immediate action be
taken to eliminate the associated risk to people and infrastructure. This tree will fail in an extreme weather
event such as high winds or thunder storms.
High This tree is likely to fail within a 6 month period, if exposed to extreme weather events such as high winds
or thunder storms.
Medium This tree may fail within a 6 to 12 month period. If exposed to extreme weather events such as high winds
or thunder storms this tree may fail.
Low This tree is unlikely to fail in the next 12 months. Remedial action may be taken to such as pruning to
mitigate the risk to people or infrastructure.
Arborist Report for 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
Prepared by Arbor Operations – July 2020
14 | P a g e
Page 15
Process Descriptions
Removal Complete tree removal leaving stump as close as possible to ground level. Process will include chipping of
all foliage limbs and timber and re-instatement of work site. Recommendation typically based on tree
being assessed as representing a health and safety concern [Dead, dying, structurally unsound, unstable,
poor form].
Remove and Grind Complete tree removal to include grinding of stump to a depth of 75 millimetres unless otherwise
specified. Process will include chipping of all foliage limbs and timber and reinstatement of work site.
Stump site will be cleaned of all grinding debris and sawdust and backfilled with premium topsoil free from
weeds.
General Pruning Pruning process will include removal of broken, crossing, rubbing, diseased, stressed or dying branches or
limbs with poor attachment. Additional work process will include pruning to define leaders, balance the
crown, reduce the weight load or clear the tree from obstructions. In summary, to rectify, as far as is
possible, any structural defects and eliminate undesirable growth.
Canopy Lift / Raise Pruning process will be restricted to raising of the tree’s lower canopy to a height specified the defaulted
parameters will be to provide 2.5 metres clearance from ground level. From time to time pruning
requirements may be altered to accommodate various factors such as view, light penetration, vehicle
thoroughfare etc and consulting arborist will advise accordingly.
Remedial Pruning Pruning process will encompass crown restoration and remedial works where the tree has been previously
lopped or otherwise damaged. Not feasible when tree has extensive decay and should only be considered
when there is evidence of healthy regrowth. When performed correctly, the process of remedial pruning
will most likely take several years to complete.
Hanger Limb Pruning process will be restricted to the removal of any hangers or dangerous/dead/dying limbs and will
typically involve the removal of a single limb. In some instances, removal of an individual limb may be
necessary to accommodate an obstruction and the consulting arborist will advise accordingly.
Directional Pruning Pruning process will be restricted to pruning canopy away from buildings/service wires/property boundary
and will typically be performed to avoid future growth in these areas [where necessary clean trunking of
undesirable growth]. Where appropriate future growth will be directed away from obstruction selecting
new leaders.
Boundary Pruning Pruning process will involve pruning of tree back to tree owners’ boundary. In every situation every effort
should be made to obtain the relevant authorisation to perform pruning to Australian Standards and to
avoid “lopping” limbs to the immediate boundary. As with directional pruning, optimum results will be
achieved when it’s feasible to eliminate undesirable growth and direct future growth. If authority to enter
and work in neighbouring property is not forthcoming processes will be restricted to access on clients
property and work standards will be appropriately comprised. Consulting arborist will duly advise client as
appropriate.
Arborist Report for 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
Prepared by Arbor Operations – July 2020
15 | P a g e
Page 16
General Terms
Australian Pruning The Standard for Arborists, Tree workers, Government Departments, Property Owners and Contractors for
Standard AS4373-2007 defining uniform tree pruning procedures and practices, to reduce the risk of hazard development, branch
failure, pathogen infection and premature tree death.
Australian Standard This Standard give guidance to horticulturists, arborists, architects, builders, engineers, land managers,
Protection of Trees on landscape architects, contractors, planners, certifying authorities, building surveyors, those concerned
Development Sites AS with the care and protection of trees and all others involved in the management of trees and
4970-2009 developments.
Deadwood Removal of all major/significant deadwood and dead branches up to and including 30mm in diameter
unless otherwise specified.
Or
Deadwood is a naturally occurring feature of most tree species and comprises dead or decaying branches
within the canopy of a tree.
Branches>30mm diameter overhang pedestrian or vehicular areas should be removed.
Branches> 50mm diameter in a playground or similar should be removed.
Leader Primary terminal shoot or trunk which is usually upright. It dominates a portion of the crown by
suppressing lateral branches.
Lateral A secondary or subordinate branch.
Lopping Tree works to remove in excess of 50% of the tree canopy and/or structure including pruning, which is not
to the collar, resulting in exposed stubs. ‘Lopping’ is poor pruning practice and is contrary to Australian
Standard Pruning of Amenity Trees 4373-2007. The unacceptable practice of cutting branches or stems
between branch unions or at internodes on young trees. It is generally accepted that ‘lopping’ will shorten
the length of a tree’s life and may lead to the decline and ultimate death of a tree.
Topping/heading back/lopping involves cutting back to a stub, bud or a lateral branch not large enough to
assume apical dominance. Severe heading causes branch dieback, decay and epicormic growth from the
cut ends, resulting in a potentially dangerous situation once the sprouts become elongated and heavy.
Topping or heading back is not recommended pruning practice.
Apical Dominance Condition where the terminal buds inhibit growth and development of lateral buds on the same stem.
Foliage Removal The amount of live wood and foliage that can be removed per season depends on the growth rate of the
tree. For actively growing medium age trees, up to 20% of the foliage may be removed per season. More
severe pruning slows root growth by shifting the root to shoot growth ratio. This adds significant stress to
the tree. Heavy pruning also reduces carbohydrate reserves, making the tree less tolerant of insects,
diseases and drought stress.
(Ref: Colorado State University Master Gardener Program - Garden Notes #616 – Pruning Mature Shade
Trees)
Co-Dominant Stems/Tri- Originate from same position of the main stem (trunk) and grow to about the same diameter. Over time
Dominant Stems stems push on each other and cracks develop below the stems. If cracks form, the stems become a high
risk for failure under low to moderate loading. Included Bark develops by being covered by the growing
together of adjacent, vertically growing stems or branches, creating a weakened internal joint.
Or
Stems or trunks of about the same size originating from the same position from the main stem. When the
stem bark ridge turns upwards, the union is strong; when the ridge turns inward, the union is weak, a likely
point of failure in storm or windy swather conditions or where increasing weight causes undue stress on
the defective union. (Australian Standard Pruning of Amenity Trees 4373-2007)
Epicormic Growth Epicormic buds lie dormant beneath the bark, their growth suppressed by hormones from active shoots
higher up the plant. Under certain conditions they develop into active shoots, such as when damage
occurs to higher parts of the plant or light levels are increased following removal of nearby plants.
Epicormic buds and shoots occur in many woody species, but are absent from many others, such as most
conifers.
Nectria Fungi most often encountered on decaying wood but some species can also occur as parasites of trees,
especially fruit trees (for example apple) and a number of other hardwood trees. Some species are
significant pests causing diseases such as apple canker.
Kino A dark red to brown resin-like substance produced by some species of trees. Kino forms when living cells
are injured and infected.
(Ref: A New Tree Biology Dictionary – Alex L. Shigo).
Useful Life Expectancy A guide or measure of tree life expectancy and how long a tree could be expected to be retained safely,
and usefully, in normal circumstances [when not subject to abnormal or adverse conditions such as
adverse or extreme weather, mechanical interference, property development or impact by machinery etc].
Arborist Report for 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
Prepared by Arbor Operations – July 2020
16 | P a g e
Page 17
Tree Protection Zone (TPZ)
A TPZ is determined by setbacks calculated for each tree based on its age class, vigour class and crown spread (where
necessary) and each tree fenced off to form an enclosure around the tree with the tree at its centre, or may utilise an existing
structure being retained such as a wall of fence.
The TPZ should be secured by a lockable gate to restrict access and the area identified with signage. The area of the TPZ
should be mulched except where turfed and kept free of weeds. Where encroachment is required within the TPZ this should
be done only with the approval of the project arborist.
Indicative Tree Protection Zone
Figure 1: Balanced Canopy Figure 2: Unbalanced Canopy
Signage
Signs identifying the TPZ should be placed around the edge of the TPZ and be visible from within the development site. The
lettering on the sign should comply with AS 1319.
Indicative Protective Fencing
LEGEND:
1 Chain wire mesh panels with shade cloth (if
required) attached, held in place with
concrete feet.
2 Alternative plywood or wooden paling
fence panels. This fencing material also
prevents building materials or soil from
entering the TPZ.
3 Mulch installation across surface of TPZ (at
the discretion of the project arborist). No
excavation, construction activity, grade
changes, surface treatment or storage of
materials of any kind is permitted within the
TPZ.
4 Bracing is permissible within the TPZ.
Installation of supports should avoid
damaging roots.
Source: Australian Standard Protection of Trees on Development Sites AS 4970-2009
Arborist Report for 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
Prepared by Arbor Operations – July 2020
17 | P a g e
Page 18
Structural Root Zone (SRZ) (AS 4970-2009)
The area around the base of a tree required for the tree’s stability in the ground. The woody root growth and soil cohesion
in this area are necessary to hold the tree upright, so the entire profile (depth) of the root zone is included in the Structural
Root Zone (SRZ). The SRZ is nominally circular with the trunk at its centre and is expressed by its radius in metres.
This zone considers a tree’s structural stability only, not the root zone required for a tree’s vigour and long-term viability,
which will usually be a much larger area.
The SRZ is the critical area required for tree stability and does not consider tree health, which will generally require a much
larger area. While there are many factors that affect the actual size of the SRZ (e.g. tree heights, crown area, soil type, soil
moisture, etc.), the area determined using the trunk diameter provides a general guide indicating where structural roots are
likely to be located. Only thorough root investigation would show the actual location of these roots. Determine SRZ radius
from the trunk diameter (measured immediately above the root buttress) using the following formula or Figure 1.
SRZ radius = (D x 50)0.42 x 0.64
where
D = trunk diameter, in metres, measured above the root buttress
Note: The SRZ for trees with trunk diameters less than 0.15 metres will be 1.5 metres.
Figure 1: Structural Root Zone
The curve can be expressed by the following formula:
RSRZ = (D x 50)0.42 x 0.64
NOTES:
1. RSRZ is the Structural Root Zone radius.
2. D is the stem diameter measured immediately above root buttress.
3. The SRZ for trees less than 0.15 metres diameter shall be 1.5 metres
4. The SRZ formula and graph do not apply to palms, other monocots, cycads and tree ferns.
5. This does not apply to trees with an asymmetrical root plate.
Source: Australian Standard Protection of Trees on Development Sites AS 4970-2009
Arborist Report for 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
Prepared by Arbor Operations – July 2020
18 | P a g e
Page 19
Reference Literature & Methodology
Mattheck, C & Breloer, H 2006, The Body of Trees, 8th edn. The Stationery Office, London
Matheny, N & Clark, JR 1998, Trees and Development, A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development,
International Society of Arboriculture, USA
Urban, J 2008, Up by Roots, Healthy Soils and Trees in the Built Environment, International Society of Arboriculture, USA
Shigo, A 1991, Modern Arboriculture, A System Approach to the Care of Trees and Their Associates, The University of Michigan, USA
Coder, Kim D. 1996. Construction Damage Assessments: Trees and Sites. University of Georgia.
Costello, L.R. and Susan D. Day. 2004. A New Look at the Impact and Management of Fill Soil around Trees, pp. 25-29. Arborist News.
August 2004.
Craul, P.J. 1999. Urban Soils: Applications and Practices. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Cue, K.P., S. Josiah. 2002. Landscaping around established trees. Retrieved June 15, 2005 from NebGuide Website:
http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/forestry/g1452.htm.
Day, S. 1999. Growth and Physiology of Several Urban Tree Species in Soils Disturbed by Construction Fill or Compaction. Dissertation
submitted to the faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Day, S, D., Seiler, J. R., Kreh, R., Smith, D. W. 2001. Overlaying compacted or uncompacted construction fill has no negative impact on
white oak and sweetgum growth and physiology. Canadian Journal of Forest Research; Jan 2001, Vol. 31 Issue 1, p100
Harris, R.W., Clark, J.R. & Matheny, N.P. 2004. Arboriculture: Integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs and Vines. Fourth
edition. Prentice Hall.
Johnson, Gary R., 1999. Protecting Trees from Construction Damage: A Homeowner’s Guide. University of Minnesota Extension
Service, FO-6135.
Koetter, R. & Johnson, G. R. (n.d.) Will fill kill? The truth about adding soil over the roots of existing landscape trees. [Online]. University
of Minnesota Forest Resources Extension. Available at: http://www.myminnesotawoods.umn.edu/2008/12/will-fill-kill/. [Accessed 2
June 2014].
MacDonald, J.D., Costello, L.R., Lichter, J.M., and Quickert, D. 2004. Fill soil effects on soil aeration and tree growth. Journal of
Arboriculture 30(1).
Smiley, E.T., T.R. Martin and Bruce R. Fraedrich. 1998. Tree root failures. Landscape Below Ground II: Proceedings of an International
Workshop on Tree Root Development in Urban Soils. D. Neely and G. Watson, Eds. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign,
IL.
Tusler, P.E., J.D. MacDonald and L.R. Costello. 1998. Fill soil effects on soil aeration. Landscape Below Ground II: Proceedings of an
International Workshop on Tree Root Development in Urban Soils. D. Neely and G. Watson, Eds. International Society of Arboriculture,
Champaign, IL.
University of Rhode Island, (n.d.). Maple Tree Decline. Retrieved June 16, 2005, from Greenshare Factsheets Web site:
www.uri.edu/ce/factsheets/sheets/mapletreedecline.html.
VanDerZanden, A.M. and J. McNeilan. 2001. Conserving Water in the Garden: Landscape and Lawn Care. Retrieved June 16, 2005 from
Orgeon State University Extension Service Website:
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/EdMat/html/EC/EC1531/EC1531.html.
Watson, G.W. 1998. Tree growth after trenching and compensatory crown pruning. Journal of Arboriculture, 24.
Watson, G.W., Kelsey, P. & Woodtli, K. 1996. Replacing soil in the root zone of mature trees for better growth. Journal of Arboriculture,
22.
Yelenosky, G. 1963. “Soil aeration and tree growth.” International Shade Tree Conference Proceedings. 40:127-147.
NOTE:
Tree identifications are sourced from numerous national and international publications as well as extensive field experience.
Pruning recommendations are in line with Australian Standard AS4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees.
Arborist Report for 28 Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville
Prepared by Arbor Operations – July 2020
19 | P a g e
Used in these records
Attachment 4 -Arborist Report July 2020.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 2.9 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.