Port Fairy Tree Management Plan - Shire of Moyne · 2017. 3. 9. · Fairy streetscape has been undertaken. An audit of each street found that 24 of the 79 streets within Port Fairy

Port Fairy Tree

Management Plan

Volume 1

November 2014

Port Fairy Tree Management Plan Moyne Shire Council

Homewood Consulting Pty Ltd

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank various people for their contribution to this project; Dr Peter May for his valuable technical support and insight on this project; Mr. Trevor Greenberger, Mr Richard Hodgens, Ms Michelle Granger, Ms Sally Hetzel and Ms Brett Anders, staff of Moyne Shire Council, for their help in defining project parameters and providing key documents and images.

Page 2 of 133



Executive Summary

Port Fairy’s street landscape is a significant asset to the local community and to the environment. It contains an urban tree population that provides numerous benefits including; shade and shelter for street users, cooling of the surrounds, a visual softening of the built landscape, contribution to stormwater management and provision of habitat corridors for wildlife, as well as contributing economically and environmentally to the township and benefiting the health and wellbeing of the community. Over the past decades there has been a significant decline in the street landscape character of Port Fairy. The urban tree population has been affected by extended periods of below average rainfall, tree decline from road/footpath upgrades, development of residential estates, resident requests for tree removal, large-scale removal of hazardous trees and lower numbers of replacement trees. The most dominant feature of the street landscape and the township skyline are the Heritage Victoria Registered (Number: PROV H2239) Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pine), many of which are over 100 years old and amongst the oldest surviving plantings in Victoria. There is concern for the health and continued longevity of these impressive trees as there is growing pressure for the town to accommodate increased urban development. This includes: larger dwellings/residential buildings on smaller blocks sealed vehicle crossovers curb and channel drainage and; permanent car parks within the road reserve. An assessment of each tree has been undertaken to determine current health and condition and provide appropriate protective measures. 282 Araucaria heterophylla were individually assessed of which: the overall health and structure is good the most common structural problem is large included limbs in the canopy of 11 trees

(Trees 40, 42, 70, 119, 124, 191, 193, 212, 22, 260 & 273) these limbs have a higher likelihood of failure and a pruning program has been

recommended to reduce or remove these limbs over the course of 10-15 years. the majority are expected to have a useful life expectancy of greater than 40 years provided

management occurs overall they pose a very low risk of harm works have been recommended for 102 trees and allocated a priority. During the assessment it was observed that car parking, crossover refurbishment and other construction is impacting upon the trees’ root systems. If left unchecked, this will have a detrimental impact upon the health and longevity of the trees. Specific recommendations have been provided in this report for the protection and management of Heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pine) to minimise the impact of infrastructure development and facilitate their longevity. In addition to addressing concerns with Heritage listed trees; a review of trees within the Port Fairy streetscape has been undertaken. An audit of each street found that 24 of the 79 streets within Port Fairy do not have any trees planted at all. The lack of street trees throughout much of the town has resulted in the opportunity to plant 1400 trees. This indicates that the street environment is relatively bare of trees and in the absence of the skyline dominating Araucaria heterophylla, the visual environment and streetscape would be barren and enclosed by buildings.

Page 3 of 133



Summary of Recommendations

Heritage Araucaria heterophylla Recommendations: 1. Any construction proposed within a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) triggers the requirement for

a construction permit. a. As part of the permit conditions an arborist report must be provided for review by

Council and/or Heritage Victoria. The report must be completed by an arborist with an Australian qualification of AQF5, Diploma of Arboriculture as a minimum.

b. Non-destructive root investigation (Airspade®, Hydrovac or similar) must occur wherever previous and proposed construction/excavation encroaches >10% of the total TPZ area.

c. Alternative construction methodologies/materials should be considered for all construction within TPZs including: i. maintaining existing soil grades (i.e. minimise excavation and addition of fill) ii. non-destructive excavation methods (Airspade® Hydrovac or similar) iii. permeable materials for all hard surfaces including footpaths and crossovers iv. consideration of final landscaping (i.e. structures, seating or trees planted within the

TPZ area and competition for resources) 2. The Draft Standard Conditions for Crossover Development is reviewed, finalised and

endorsed by Council. 3. Best practice approach to parking under Heritage listed trees occurs through:

a. Determining compaction potential of the soil around the Araucarias b. Preventing cars parking within the Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of any tree through the

installation of bollards, boulders or similar around the edge of the SRZ. c. Creating parking bays to provide direction to vehicles and maximise parking capability d. Control erosion due to car parking by installing soil stabilising structures

(e.g.Gravelpave2 or similar) or through the application of mulch. 4. Pruning works are carried out by qualified arborists with demonstrated experience in the

management of large and mature trees. Minimum qualifications for tree works are a National Certificate in Arboriculture AQF Level 4 arboriculture as a minimum.

5. All pruning undertaken conforms to the Australian Standard, Pruning of Amenity Trees (AS-4373 2007).

6. Recommended works are undertaken within the timeframe provided. 7. Notification of intended pruning or removal is provided to Heritage Victoria as per the

Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations, 2010 where works to Heritage listed trees occurs by energy suppliers or contractors.

8. Similar notification should be provided to Heritage Victoria where pruning works are to be undertaken by Council.

9. Emergency works where there is an imminent threat to human life or infrastructure damage (storm damage, failure clean-up etc.) should be conducted immediately in the absence of approval from Heritage Victoria. These works and reasons must be documented either prior to clean-up or within the week following and the documents retained at Council.

10. In a coordinated effort with the electrical distributor (Powercor), a cost benefit analysis for retrofitting current power lines with Aerial Bundle Cable (ABC) or undergrounding cables is undertaken for Heritage listed trees.

Page 4 of 133



11. Edging and mulch is applied around the tree base; covering the SRZ as a minimum to exclude works and car parking from this area. a. High use areas such as Gipps Street and the north end of Sackville Street as well as

trees in poor health should be targeted first. As budgets allow all Heritage listed trees should be mulched.

12. Branchlet collection occurs on a quarterly basis and residents are notified of this change in council policy.

13. Interpretive signage and/or a heritage walk describing the significance and history of these trees is developed in conjunction with the Port Fairy Historical Society.

14. An arborist walkover assessment of the trees occurs every 2 years to determine any significant change in condition and provide further management options.

15. A full reassessment of the trees should be conducted by an arborist every 6-8 years.

Street Tree Recommendations:

16. The priorities and procedures contained within the Street Tree Replacement Strategy and Street Tree Replacement Manual (Appendix 1) are endorsed and adhered to by council.

17. The 20 Cupressus macrocarpa located within James Street (south) are removed as a group within the next 12 months and new plantings are established in 2 years following public consultation.

18. Protection guidelines outlined in Australian Standard, Protection of Trees on Development Sites (AS 4970-2009) are enforced and included in planning and development documentation for all street trees.

19. The street tree removal policy and grievance procedure is implemented and made readily available to all residents in a user friendly manner on the Council website and in documents at Council offices.

20. All pruning work conforms to the Australian Standard, Pruning of Amenity Trees (AS4373-2007).

21. Uniformity in the height of canopy lifting occurs throughout Port Fairy, with guidelines endorsed and part of Council policy.

22. Following implementation of the Street Tree Replacement Strategy, a Street Tree Inventory is undertaken for Port Fairy to quantify the tree asset and determine management requirements.

Page 5 of 133



Short Term/ Specific Management Recommendations:

23. Araucaria heterophylla at corner of Bank Street and Sackville Street. a. Signs, lights or other objects that cause damage to the trunk/limb are not installed in the

tree and any existing lights or signage are removed. b. Within the SRZ.

i. the asphalt and concrete around the tree base is lifted carefully under arborist supervision

ii. raised box seating is installed around the trunk iii. mulch is laid underneath the seat and around the SRZ

c. Outside of the SRZ. i. the existing asphalt and concrete outside the mulched zone should be carefully

lifted under arborist supervision ii. porous rubber or other porous materials are considered for use in path

refurbishment 24. Cupressus macrocarpa at Martins Point

a. The specified trees are removed within 12 months. b. A wind break for the area is created around the perimeter of the park by creating

mounds with fill soil or through fencing/ panel installation. i. If mounds are used they should be planted with fast growing shrubby species to

provide screening and a more effective wind dampener ii. If soil levels and grade changes occur, drainage for the area must be considered

25. Bourne Avenue a. Improve the current conditions around the base of World War One Avenue of Honour

trees within Bourne Avenue. This should include: i. A mulched area around the base of the trees’ SRZs and bollards or boulders

installed to prevent parking ii. Crossover installation occurs to the council approved guidelines iii. Where there is significant encroachment within TPZs from existing crossovers, a

realignment should occur b. Reference to the significance of the avenue occurs and including:

i. memorial installation ii. interpretive signage iii. registration with the Avenues of Honour 1915-2015 project

26. Lagunaria patersonia throughout the Township a. Powercor is approached by Council to discuss complete removal of Lagunaria

patersonia rather than scheduled powerline clearance pruning b. cost benefit analysis should determine the viability of a collaborative approach to tree

removal c. if the trees are not removed by Powercor, systematic removal should occur as part of

the staged street tree renewal program by Council.

Page 6 of 133



Contents

1. Vision and Objectives ................................................................................................... 9

1.1 The Vision ................................................................................................................ 9 1.2 Goals ........................................................................................................................ 9 1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................. 9

2. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 10

2.1 Key Documents ...................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Acronyms ............................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Street Tree History .................................................................................................. 11

3. Current Management Issues ....................................................................................... 14

4. Heritage Araucaria heterophylla Management Plan .................................................. 16 4.1 Assessment Review and Discussion ...................................................................... 16

4.1.1 Health ............................................................................................................ 16 4.1.2 Structure ........................................................................................................ 19 4.1.3 ULE ............................................................................................................... 21 4.1.4 Risk Assessment ........................................................................................... 21 4.1.5 Recommended Works ................................................................................... 22

4.2 Relevant Overlays .................................................................................................. 26 4.2.1 Victorian Heritage Register (H2239) .............................................................. 26 4.2.2 Moyne Planning Scheme Heritage Overlay (HO48) ....................................... 27 4.2.3 Design and Development Overlay (DDO) ...................................................... 27 4.2.4 Works within Road Reserves ......................................................................... 28 4.2.5 Summary ....................................................................................................... 28

4.3 Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) Specifications ............................................................. 28 4.3.1 TPZ Requirements ........................................................................................ 28 4.3.2 Structural Root Zone (SRZ) .......................................................................... 30

4.4 Construction within TPZs ........................................................................................ 31 4.4.1 Encroachment ............................................................................................... 31 4.4.2 Crossover Development ................................................................................ 32 4.4.3 Car Parking ................................................................................................... 34

4.5 Tree Pruning Requirements-Araucaria heterophylla ............................................... 37 4.5.1 Canopy lift pruning ......................................................................................... 37 4.5.2 Power line Clearance ..................................................................................... 38

4.6 Mulch Application.................................................................................................... 38 4.7 Leaf/Branchlet Litter ................................................................................................ 39

4.7.1 Council Collection .......................................................................................... 39 4.7.2 Gutter Blockage ............................................................................................. 39

4.8 Araucaria heterophylla Interpretive Signage ........................................................... 40 4.9 Reassessment ........................................................................................................ 40

5. Street Tree Management Plan ..................................................................................... 41

5.1 Audit Review and Discussion .................................................................................. 41 5.2 Species composition ............................................................................................... 41

Page 7 of 133



5.3 Average Health, Condition and ULE ....................................................................... 42 5.3.1 Planting Opportunity ...................................................................................... 43

5.4 Street Tree Protection and Pruning ......................................................................... 44 5.4.1 Significant Tree Register ............................................................................... 44 5.4.2 Tree Removal Policy...................................................................................... 44 5.4.3 Street Tree Pruning Requirements ................................................................ 47

5.5 Competing Infrastructure and Services ................................................................... 47 5.5.1 Canopy Clearance Requirements .................................................................. 47 5.5.2 Management of Vegetation beneath Powerlines ............................................ 48 5.5.3 Specific Management Issues/Considerations ................................................ 51

5.6 Potential Corella/Parrot Damage ............................................................................ 56 5.7 Street Tree Replacement Strategy .......................................................................... 56

5.7.1 Notification (Minor Capital Works) .................................................................. 56 5.7.2 Consultation (Major Capital Works) ............................................................... 58 5.7.3 Implementation .............................................................................................. 58

6. References ................................................................................................................... 59

Appendix 1. Street Tree Replacement Manual ........................................................... 61

Appendix 2. Methodology and Data Collection Definitions....................................... 89

Appendix 3. Araucaria heterophylla Recommended Works Tables ......................... 94

Appendix 4. Araucaria heterophylla TPZ and SRZ Tables ...................................... 109

Appendix 5. TPZ and SRZ Maps ................................................................................ 124

Appendix 6. Replacement Species Descriptions ..................................................... 128

Page 8 of 133



1. Vision and Objectives

1.1 The Vision

The vision for the Port Fairy Street Tree Management Plan: “To have a street tree population that is attractive, sustainable, healthy, defines neighbourhood character and provides a pleasant environment for the community to live and work.”

1.2 Goals

This Management Plan will have four significant goals: Create a pleasant living, walking and cycling environment. Establish sustainable design principles and planting themes. Focus resources on the planning, implementation, protection and development of street

landscapes. Provide specific recommendations for the protection and management of Heritage listed

Araucaria heterophylla, particularly in relation to construction.

1.3 Objectives

Objectives in preparing the strategy have been to: Undertake an individual tree assessment of all Heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla

outlining condition and works/management requirements Establish Tree Protection Zones that are in accordance with AS 4970-2009. Undertake an audit of all other non-Heritage listed streets detailing the dominant species,

number of trees, number of vacant sites general tree health and condition, general works and determine replacement management options and timeframes.

To create a single document that is a practical and realistic tool to manage, conserve, and enhance the existing street trees within the context of their historic importance, cultural and social values to the township.

Enhance the character and identity of the town through the identification of management regimes and timed replacement (only where necessary) of existing street tree stock.

Identifying appropriate street trees for newer areas of the town to compliment township character.

To provide a framework for a whole of Council approach to management of street trees having regard to heritage, traffic, access and arboricultural opportunities and constraints.

To incorporate collected and existing GPS data for GIS mapping layers and mobile data use.

Page 9 of 133



2. Introduction

Port Fairy’s street landscape is a significant asset to the local community and to the environment. Important benefits of urban vegetation include the provision of shade and shelter for street users, cooling, visual softening of the built landscape, contribution to stormwater management and provision of faunal habitat and generally creating a ‘green’ aspect to an otherwise built-up environment encouraging people to walk and cycle our streets. In recent years there has been a noticeable decline in the street landscape character of Port Fairy. The urban tree population has been affected by extended periods of below average rainfall, tree decline from road/footpath upgrades, development of residential estates, resident requests for tree removal, large-scale removal of hazardous trees and lower numbers of replacement trees. This has been exacerbated by the absence of a real-time street tree inventory to assist with the management of the street tree population. Protecting and expanding Port Fairy’s street tree population is critical in managing the impacts of urban growth, whilst ensuring that Port Fairy remains a healthy and enjoyable place for people to live and work, as well as support local fauna. To continue to improve Port Fairy’s liveability, Moyne Shire Council has committed to the vision of the Street Tree Replacement Strategy: “To have an Urban Forest* that is attractive, diverse, sustainable, healthy, defines neighbourhood character and provides a pleasant environment for the community to live and work.” An *Urban Forest is a dense, widespread growth of trees and plants covering an area of a city

The goals of the strategy are to: Create a pleasant living, walking and cycling environment Establish ecologically sustainable design principles and planting themes Focus resources on the planning, implementation, protection and development of street

landscapes Provide specific recommendations for the protection and management of Heritage listed

Araucaria heterophylla, particularly in relation to construction

2.1 Key Documents

There have been several documents used in the preparation of this report. These documents vary from reports detailing management issues associated with development near Heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla along Gipps Street; a compendium on the history of Port Fairy street trees and the Moyne Shire Council tree management plan. These primary documents consist of: A brief history of the street and specimen trees of Belfast/Port Fairy 2006 The Port Fairy Heritage Review 2008 Victorian Heritage Register H2239- Norfolk Island Pines Moyne Shire Council Development and Design Manual 2009 – new urban development Draft guidelines for crossover construction near Norfolk Island Pines and other significant

trees 2008 Existing arboriculture reports for Norfolk Island Pines Documents from the National Trust Register. Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations, 2010

Page 10 of 133



AS 4970-2009 AS4373-2007 Council Arboriculture Victoria Reporting Guidelines for Developments (2008) Moyne Shire –Norfolk island pine concerns at Gipps Street, Port Fairy (Waters 2001) Moyne Shire – Norfolk Island Pine; Management Options (Waters 2004)

2.2 Acronyms

ABC, Aerial Bundled Cable AQF, Australian Qualification Framework AS 4970-2009, The Australian Standard for Protection of Tree on Development Sites AS4373-2007, The Australian Standard for Pruning of Amenity Trees CBD, Central Business District NDE, Non-Destructive Excavation QTRA, Quantified Tree Risk Assessment TPF, Tree Protection Fence TPZ, Tree Protection Zone calculated at 12x the trunk diameter at 1.4m above ground level SRZ, Structural Root Zone according to Australian Standard Protection of Trees on Development Sites. ULE, Useful life expectancy WSUD, Water Sensitive Urban Design

2.3 Street Tree History

Port Fairy is a town steeped in a rich European history, commencing primarily with sealers, whalers and graziers during the early 1800’s. This was followed by the inception of the township originally named “Belfast” in 1843 by James Atkinson (Port Fairy Historical Society 2012). Details of species present at this time is limited; however, research by Syme (2006) suggests the dunes backing East Beach and Griffith Island were largely devoid of vegetation, Acacia melanoxylon (Blackwood) was the dominant vegetation on the flats behind the Belfast Lough dunes and Allocasuarina verticillata (Drooping She-oak) and Banksia marginata (Silver Banksia) were predominant in the area west of the Moyne River. It is likely that the standard settlement practice of land clearing occurred to make way for farming and agriculture, with historical images up to 1870 revealing a landscape of few to no trees (Syme 2006). In an attempt to improve the visual landscape many of the early residents began planting trees, with one of the earliest noted being Michael Connolly, who planted some Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pine) in his garden circa 1852 (Heritage Victoria 2010). The species gained favour with other residents and council, with the first street tree plantings in 1876 on the west side of Sackville Street, between Campbell Street and Cox Street (Victorian Heritage Register 2010). Additional street plantings over ensuing decades combined with Arbor Day plantings in 1903 created the current rows or avenues of Gipps, Campbell, Albert, James, Regent, Sackville and William Streets (Victorian Heritage Register 2010). Other large-scale street plantings around this time and into the early to mid-1900’s included Cupressus macrocarpa (Monterey Cypress) within Bank, Campbell, Cox and James Streets, the Princes Highway and Martins Point, as well as Allocasuarina verticillata (Drooping She-oak)

Page 11 of 133



along Wisharts Street and the southern section of James Street leading to the beach (Syme 2006) (refer Figure 1 and Figure 2 for examples.

Figure 1: Example of Cupressus macrocarpa located along James Street circa 1960

(Moyne Shire Photo Collection)

Figure 2: Early tile of southern James Street leading to the beach with Allocasuarina verticillata

(Moyne Shire Photo Collection)

Page 12 of 133



The Cupressus macrocarpa were used on opposing streets to Araucaria heterophylla within the original grid of the township. They were also used as an Avenue of Honour along the Princes Highway from Roberts Avenue to Bank Street. The use of these species was questioned around the 1950s due to the continued management requirements and shorter longevity compared to Araucaria heterophylla.

Advice was sought at the time from J.A. Incoll (Senior Forester of the Forest Commission Victoria) on planting selections which resulted in plantings of Lagunaria patersonii (Norfolk Island Hibiscus) and Metrosideros excelsa (New Zealand Christmas Bush) (Syme 2006). Over the last couple of decades the Cupressus macrocarpa have widely been removed (Hodgens pers. comm. 2012), with some of the last remaining Cupressus macrocarpa located on James Street (south of Campbell Street) being in poor structural condition. These trees are in decline and they are not expected to be retained in the short-term. Today the most commonly planted street species are Araucaria heterophylla and to a lesser extent Agonis flexuosa (Western Australian Willow-myrtle), Lagunaria patersonii, Metrosideros excelsa and Olea europaea (Olive).

Page 13 of 133



3. Current Management Issues

The township of Port Fairy is a popular tourist destination, particularly for holiday accommodation, caravan parks, in private dwellings and larger developments. The permanent population of Port Fairy is approximately 2,500 people, however at busier times of the year, this population can rise to 10,000-13,000 over Christmas and New Years and approximately 30,000 people over the Folk Festival long weekend in March. There is a growing expectation that the town can and will accommodate urban/suburban development, such as larger dwellings/residential buildings on smaller blocks, sealed vehicle crossovers, curb and channel drainage and private permanent car parks within the road reserve. This inherently poses a threat to the health and longevity of street trees, particularly Heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla within the central Port Fairy Township. There are several factors of concern, including: Potential compaction of the root zones and mechanical damage through car parking over

time additional vehicle crossover installation or crossover refurbishments excavation for services or other infrastructure storage of building materials placed throughout road reserves. Council’s Assets and Works Departments currently have a Tree Management Plan (2005) to manage, care for and maintain trees across the municipality; however it is not widely used. It is a document that moreover refers to all Council roads without specific recommendations. Any maintenance or works undertaken to street trees is currently undertaken on a case by case basis and are normally in response to service requests from landowners, observation by Council Staff and annual inspection by contractors. The 2014 management plan aims to address the main concerns and allow for adequate protection of these trees in light of modernisation and the high tourist population. It is Council’s position that a specific management plan is developed for the management of heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla in terms of: General health maintenance Pruning requirements Leaf litter Construction within TPZs Parking within TPZs As part of this management plan an individual assessment of all heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla located within the nature strips of Albert, Campbell, Gipps, James, Regent, Sackville and William Streets has occurred. 282 trees have been assessed, with an overview provided in in section -and individual tree details provided in Volume 2.

Page 14 of 133



In addition to the specific issues associated with Heritage listed trees, the Street Tree Management Plan provides recommendations for specific programs of tree planting including: species suitable to the site that consider management and maintenance issues appropriate spacing public safety overhead power lines the existing township character. To determine these factors, the existing tree population has been surveyed and site conditions considered. Details of this assessment have been provided in section, with the individual report for each street in Volume 3. Specific advice has been requested on a deteriorating stand of Cupressus macrocarpa located at Martins Point and also issues associated with Lagunaria patersonia that have been planted as a street tree. These and other issues have been specifically addressed in section 5.5.3.

Page 15 of 133



4. Heritage Araucaria heterophylla Management Plan

4.1 Assessment Review and Discussion

As part of this management plant an individual assessment of all Heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla located within nature strips of Albert, Campbell, Gipps, James, Regent, Sackville and William Streets has occurred. 282 trees have been assessed, with an overview provided in the following sections and individual tree details provided in Volume 2.

4.1.1 Health

The overall health of the assessed trees is good, with only 16% of the entire population having fair or poor health (refer Table 1). This result is very different to the findings of Waters (2001), where 88 of the Araucaria heterophylla within Gipps Street were assessed. To compare this difference adequately the results from the 2012 assessment have been provided in Table 1. There is a marked difference in the assessment of tree health in Gipps Street from 2001 to 2012.

Table 1. Summary of health

Gipps Street (Waters 2001)

Gipps Street (2012)

All Trees (2012)

Health Number of Individuals

% Number of Individuals

% Number of Individuals

%

Good 5 6% 70 74% 237 84.0% Fair 43 49% 23 24% 41 14.6% Poor 40 45% 2 2% 4 1.4% TOTAL 88 95 282

Whilst there can be a difference between each arboricultural assessors opinion of tree health, it is expected that this would be a marginal shift from one category to another rather than a reversal of the upper and lower scales. It is therefore assumed that there has been an overall improvement in the health of the trees in Gipps Street. There can be numerous reasons for an improvement in tree health; however, the most common cause is an improvement in environmental conditions, namely water availability. When investigating the mean rainfall of Port Fairy from 1994-2013 it was found that rainfall was generally below average for the years leading to the 2001 assessment, whereas in the 6 years leading to the 2012 assessment there was above average rainfall (Bureau Of Meteorology 2013) (refer Table 2). This clearly shows that there was a reduced yearly water volume when compared to the mean prior to the 2001 assessments and an increased yearly water volume prior to the 2012 assessment. This difference is likely to have promoted leaf development and aided in overall tree health for the 2012 assessment.

Page 16 of 133



Table 2. Yearly rainfall and difference to mean (adapted from data BOM 2013)

Year Yearly

Rainfall(mm)

Difference to Mean

(682mm)

1995 583 -99 1996 613 -69 1997 582 -100 1998 602 -80 1999 564 -118 2000 640 -42 2001 719 37 2002 606 -76 2003 627 -55

Year Yearly

Rainfall(mm)

Difference to Mean

(682mm)

2004 755 73 2005 665 -17 2006 493 -189 2007 923 241 2008 721 39 2009 868 186 2010 838 156 2011 832 150 2012 764 82

The conclusion of the 2001 report was that: ‘the decline of the Norfolk Island Pines in Gipps Street is directly linked to the disturbance of the root zone around the base of the individual trees’ with the main factors being ‘the increase in the amount of vehicle traffic and parking combined with the advent of the newer vehicle crossovers’.

This finding can generally be applied to the 282 Araucarias assessed in 2012. Whilst the overall health of the trees has improved since the last assessment, the majority of the 41 trees in fair condition still have deadwood present and the canopies are sparser than trees in good health. As found in the 2001 report, the trees in poorer condition are generally located in areas where frequent parking occurs and where there has been disturbance of the soil environment from excavation for infrastructure such as footpaths, roads, crossovers, fences, dwellings etc. These works may have damaged significant roots or root complexes, although the extent of damage without knowledge of past excavation practices or subsurface investigation is impossible to establish. Due to these multiple disturbances it is difficult to determine the sole effect of parking beneath the canopies of the trees. In general, parking beneath trees is not desirable as this can cause compaction of the soil profile as well as a decline in soil health. Soils are normally composed of minerals (clay, silt, sand) of various sized particles that result in variable sized spaces (pores) between them (refer Figure 3). These pores allow for water and gas to move through the soil profile, with faster movement occurring through larger sized pores. Tree roots need nutrients in the soil, water, oxygen and other gases in the atmosphere to survive.

Figure 3: Example of soil particles and pore spaces between

(Handreck and Black 2002)

Page 17 of 133



Compaction ‘squashes’ the pores in the soil whilst fill/impermeable surfaces create a layer that inhibits or completely prevents water infiltration and gas exchange with the soil. This can occur through hard surface creation, landscaping and continuous pedestrian traffic, cars or trucks. This in turn limits water, oxygen and nutrients to tree roots, causing death or a decline which is reflected in the canopy of the tree. As a coastal township, the soil composition of Port Fairy is expected to be predominantly sand with a homogeneous particle size. Having a soil composed of predominantly one mineral type alters pore size and compaction potential. Compaction of homogeneous sand particles is relatively minimal from pressure, although it can be much greater through vibration (McIntyre and Jakobson 1998). Testing either onsite with a penetrometer or by sending soil samples off-site for testing can determine the compaction ability of the soil around the Araucarias. It is recommended that testing occurs to establish a best practice approach to parking beneath Heritage listed trees. In the absence of soil compaction potential a precautionary approach has been taken, where it is assumed that some level of compaction occurs that should be mitigated. Details of parking materials and methods have been supplied in section 4.4.3. Car parking within the nature strip is leading to soil erosion. This should be prevented as erosion can lead to damage and death of fine feeder roots and expose the larger transport and structural roots. Compaction and erosion issues have been addressed in the management options in section 4.4.3. Another factor in tree health is tree longevity. These trees are some of the oldest recorded in Victoria and it is possible that they are in the early stages of senescence. Senescence is a natural process of decline that a tree experiences following maturity. In natural decline, death occurs through a series of linked events that forms a ‘mortality spiral’ (refer Figure 4). This spiral occurs progressively, with the length of transition between decline and death usually correlated to the species’ life expectancy. As these are long lived specimens this process is expected to take several decades and will produce symptoms including: The shedding of limbs a reduction of foliage density an increased volume of deadwood throughout the canopy the discolouration of foliage a reduced ability to cope with disease and insect infestation a reduced ability to cope with decay.

Page 18 of 133



Figure 4: The ‘mortality spiral’ describes the process of decline from ‘vigorous’ to ‘dead’ as a result of specific biological, cultural and environmental factors (image from Harris, Clark and Matheny 1999).

4.1.2 Structure

The structure of the assessed trees is predominantly good, with almost 80% having good structure and only 14 individuals having poor structure (Trees 24, 40, 41, 92, 124, 132, 149, 150, 151, 152, 212, 221, 253 and 273). Table 3 provides an overview.

Table 3. Summary of structure

Structure Number of Individuals %

Good 220 78% Fair 48 17% Poor 14 5% TOTAL 282

The reason for this overall good structure is due to the excurrent nature of the species, where a strong central leader stem is produced and smaller branches that are well attached. The most common reason for the trees with poor structure are included branch and stem unions within the upper canopy (refer Figure 5 and Figure 6) for examples. In normal development, branches attach to the trunk of the tree via a series of interlocking wood fibres. As the tree grows, fibres from the branch are ‘overlaid’ by fibres from the trunk and then branch fibres overlay the trunk fibres (Shigo 1991).

Page 19 of 133



Figure 5: Example of included union in

the stem of a eucalypt

Figure 6: Included unions in the canopy of Tree 40

Where the angle at which the stems join is acute there can be a reduced fibre interlocking, leading to a weaker attachment. In some situations the wood fibres actually become ingrown. This is known as ‘included bark’ and can be readily identified in a stem crotch. As the limb gains girth, stress is placed upon the union and over time the union is forced apart. Trees with included bark have a higher probability of failure (Shigo 1991). Where two stems originate from the trunk and have similar dimensions they are termed codominant. In this case the mature Araucarias with large codominant stems have a higher potential for failure and significant damage to surrounding infrastructure, pedestrians and the trees themselves as a result. To prevent failures from occurring in these trees, works have been recommended of either stem removal if it is not too large or codominant stem reduction. Codominant reduction is a pruning program where the length of the stem is reduced through several pruning events over 10 or 15 years depending upon the size of the stem and the level of inclusion/decay visible. In most cases this is not entirely visible due to the height of the tree and an inspection of the unions is recommended to gain better perspective of the stem to be reduced. Rather than immediate removal, this type of work will allow for a better response for the tree as the retained stem section will still photosynthesize and produce energy. This will aid remodelling of the canopy and new branch/leaf development and promote the health of the tree during works. A staged reduction plan should be prepared by the climbing arborist that outlines how the works are to be completed, with reference to AS 4373-2007, Pruning Amenity Trees. Other structural issues with trees included deadwood present within the canopy and mechanical damage of the roots through excavation or vehicles damaging surface roots.

Page 20 of 133



4.1.3 ULE

The overall good condition of the trees and the long lived nature of the species are reflected in the length of their ULEs. The majority of trees are expected to have a ULE of greater than 40 years provided management occurs and they are protected in the advent construction (refer Table 4). Tree 150 is the only tree with a ULE of less than 20 years. It is a young tree that has had mechanical damage of the trunk and canopy that has resulted in numerous stems arising from the damage point. In this case formative pruning is not deemed appropriate and removal and replacement should occur.

Table 4. Summary of ULE

Rating Number of Individuals %

1-5 years 1 0.4% 20-40 years 21 7.4% 40+ years 260 92.2% TOTAL 282 100%

4.1.4 Risk Assessment

Different risk score methods can be utilised but the Risk Score Method that has been adopted is from Ellison (2005). For details of methodology see Appendix 2. The method used has the following elements. Probability of failure (PF) Size of part likely to fail (FS) Target occupancy (TO) The Ellison Risk Score methodology is probabilistic and the lower the value the higher the risk. The risk score is presented as a numeric value however it is properly expressed as a fraction e.g. Risk Score that equals 344 indicates that the predicted event has a 1/344 chance of occurrence. 1/1 indicates that an event is certain to occur and 1/10 000 000 indicates that it is extraordinarily unlikely. The three factors are multiplied to arrive at a Risk of Harm (ROH) according to the equation:

ROH = 1/(PF × FS × TO) An accepted threshold of risk is generally in the order of 1/10 000 and any tree that scores less than 10 000 would be expected to be worked upon within the next twelve months. The risk assessment has been categorized by Homewood Consulting ranging from ‘Very High’ to ‘Very Low’ risk of harm. The incremental rise between categories increases by orders of magnitude as the risk assessment operates on an exponential scale (refer Table 5).

Page 21 of 133



Table 5. Summary of the QTRA risk assessment categories

Risk Category Ellison Rating

Very High 1/5 000 000

This revealed that overall the trees posed a very low Risk Of Harm (ROH) (refer Table 6 for an overview. The highest risk category is moderate, with Trees 24, 40, 119, 124, 193 being in this category. These trees have included unions that have been present for many years and rather than a high likelihood of failure, it is the large size of part likely to fail that is driving risk.

Table 6. Summary of risk

Risk Category Number of Individuals

Moderate 5 Low 11 Very low 266 TOTAL 282

4.1.5 Recommended Works

Despite the overall low level of risk, works have been recommended to reduce the likelihood of branch failures, particularly given the size of the part and the level of damage that would result. Other pruning works have been recommended to improve tree structure, improve the health and condition of the tree and promote ULE. To provide a summary these works have been categorised and allocated a priority (refer Table 7 and Table 8.

Table 7. Summary of works categories

Works Category Number of Individuals

No works 180 Specialised pruning 62 Minor pruning 23 Minor works 12 Climbing inspection 4 Removal & replacement

1

TOTAL 282

Table 8. Summary of works priority

Works Priority

Number of Individuals

Completion Timeframe

Urgent 16 Immediate/next pruning cycle

High 49 Within 1year Moderate 29 Within 2years Low 8 Within 4years None 180 N/A TOTAL 282

Page 22 of 133



All trees with an urgent priority are those that require power line clearance which should be completed within the next power line clearance pruning cycle. These works are likely to be undertaken by Powercor as part of their power line management plan. As these are Heritage listed trees, notification to Heritage Victoria as per the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations, 2010 is required outlining; intended pruning or removal requirements, details of the impact of pruning and actions taken to minimise the impact (refer section 5.5.2.2 for details). For all other trees where pruning works are to be undertaken by Council, similar notification should be provided to Heritage Victoria and the documents retained at Council. Many of the trees with high priority works require power line clearance. 20 other trees require pruning or risk mitigation works. These trees have been listed in Table 9. Works for these trees should be commenced/completed within a 12 months. Full details of all other individual tree works can be found within Appendix 3 and Volume 2. Where emergency works (storm damage, failure clean-up etc.) are required these should be conducted immediately in the absence of approval from Heritage Victoria; however, these works should be documented either prior to clean-up or within the week following and the documents retained at Council. For the purpose of this report, emergency works are described as tree works that are immediately necessary to reduce an imminent risk posed by a tree or part of a tree to surrounding infrastructure or human life.

Page 23 of 133



Table 9. Works required for trees on a high priority

ID Street Planted

Canopy Dimensions

DBH Health Structure Defects Works Comments

7 William street

25m x 12m 115cm Good Good None Domestic LV clearance, LV wire clearance, Property/Asset clearance

Provide clearance of nearby light

24 William street

26m x 13m 106cm Good Poor Canopy codominant, Canopy included bark, Canopy hollow

Domestic LV clearance, Climbing inspection

Bees present in upper canopy, inspect included upper unions and undertake a 15 year reduction program as appropriate

40 William street

24m x 17m 131cm Good Poor Canopy included bark, Canopy codominant

Structural pruning, Climbing inspection

Inspect included upper unions and undertake a 15 year reduction program as appropriate

41 William street

21m x 17m 115cm Good Poor None Climbing inspection Tree crown damaged in storm, possible decay in upper stems, inspect unions and undertake a reduction program as appropriate

68 Sackville street

26m x 15m 114cm Fair Fair Roots mechanical damage, Roots filled soil level

HV wire clearance, Property/Asset clearance

Damage to surrounding infrastructure, remove lights from tree, reduce asphalt fill around base, mulch and install box seat

70 Sackville street

19m x 15m 104cm Good Fair Roots mechanical damage, Trunk mechanical damage, Trunk decay, Canopy included bark, Canopy codominant

Structural pruning Inspect included upper union and undertake a 15 year reduction program on appropriate stem

81 James street

23m x 15m 115cm Good Good None Property/Asset clearance Remove pipe out of tree

86 Albert street 20m x 17m 106cm Poor Fair Canopy deadwood Irrigation, Mulch required None

Page 24 of 133



ID Street Planted

Canopy Dimensions

DBH Health Structure Defects Works Comments

92 Albert street 20m x 13m 133cm Good Poor Roots mechanical damage, Trunk included bark, Trunk mechanical damage

Climbing inspection Cannot observe upper union, inspect included upper union and undertake a 15 year reduction program as appropriate

95 Albert street 19m x 14m 110cm Good Fair Roots filled soil level Property/Asset clearance, LV wire clearance

Remove chicken wire around trunk

96 Albert street 17m x 11m 91cm Good Fair None Property/Asset clearance, LV wire clearance

None

100 Albert street 17m x 14m 86cm Good Fair None LV wire clearance, Property/Asset clearance

None

119 Regent street

25m x 13m 130cm Good Fair Canopy included bark, Canopy codominant

Structural pruning Reduce eastern stem over 10 year reduction program

121 Regent street

25m x 15m 119cm Good Good Canopy deadwood LV wire clearance, Remove broken branch

None

124 Regent street

22m x 15m 122cm Good Poor Canopy codominant, Canopy included bark

Structural pruning Inspect included upper union and undertake a 15 year reduction program as appropriate

143 Regent street

12m x 12m 75cm Poor Fair Trunk mechanical damage, Canopy deadwood

Irrigation, Mulch required Grading damage likely to roots

170 Gipps street 26m x 17m 141cm Good Good Roots mechanical damage Property/Asset clearance, Domestic LV clearance

Provide clearance of power pole

181 Gipps street 24m x 15m 132cm Good Good None Property/Asset clearance, LV wire clearance

Provide clearance of power pole

221 Gipps street 26m x 15m 132cm Good Poor Canopy included bark Structural pruning Reduce included stem over road 228 Gipps street 27m x 14m 127cm Good Good Roots filled soil level Root ball Maintenance Remove soil fill from base

Page 25 of 133



4.2 Relevant Overlays

There are two main instruments relevant to protection of the Heritage Listed trees within Port Fairy. These are a Victorian Heritage Register listing (H2239) and a Heritage Overlay (HO48) within the Moyne Planning Scheme. A Design and Development Overlay and Schedules apply to the entire township, with controls on material types and construction on private property within Tree Protection Zones. The following subsections highlight where tree controls apply and where construction within Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) can be reviewed through planning. This is an overview and original documentation should be viewed to determine exact requirements.

4.2.1 Victorian Heritage Register (H2239)

This listing applies to Albert Street, Campbell Street, Gipps Street, James Street, Regent Street, Sackville Street and William Street (refer to Figure 7). The aim of the listing is to ensure the protection of the trees and the aesthetic value of the wider streetscape during any works.

Figure 7: Streets to which the register applies

According to Heritage Victoria (Register H2239) a permit is required where: ‘Buildings and works associated with water, gas, power, sewer, drainage or similar services that occur within the road reserve will require an arborist report and the approval of the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria.’

‘Repairs to the asphalt road surface are exempt from a permit, however any excavation works, new vehicle crossovers and driveways within the road reserve will require an arborist report and the approval of the Executive Director of Heritage Victoria.’

Page 26 of 133



In relation to tree management this listing has provision for permit exemptions on the basis of: Management and maintenance of trees including formative and remedial pruning, removal

of deadwood, pest and disease control, cabling, mowing, weed control and mulching. In the event of loss or removal of trees, replanting with Araucaria heterophylla to maintain

the landscape character identified in the statement of significance. Removal of tree seedlings and suckers but excluding herbicide use. Management of trees in accordance with AS 4373-2007 Pruning amenity trees. Management of trees in accordance with AS 4970-2009, Protection of trees on

development sites. Removal of plants listed as Prohibited and Controlled Weeds in the Catchment and Land

Protection Act 1994. Repairs, conservation and maintenance to structures and hard landscape elements, asphalt

and gravel roads and paths, stone and concrete edging, fences and gates.

4.2.2 Moyne Planning Scheme Heritage Overlay (HO48)

Whilst section 43.01 of the Heritage Overlay has numerous elements relating to building demolition, refurbishment or other construction, it also contains tree specific information. According to the overlay, a permit is required to: Remove, destroy or lop a tree if the schedule to this overlay identifies the heritage place as

one where tree controls apply. This does not apply to: any action which is necessary to keep the whole or any part of a tree clear of an electric line

provided the action is carried out in accordance with a code of practice prepared under Section 86 of the Electricity Safety Act 1998.

If the tree presents an immediate risk of personal injury or damage to property. Additional permit conditions are likely to be required under the Victorian Heritage Register listing.

4.2.3 Design and Development Overlay (DDO)

This overlay primarily details building and design specifications; however, there are several statements within section 43.02 that loosely allow for impact minimisation of construction within TPZs. According to this clause a permit is required to: Construct a building or construct or carry out works. This does not apply:

If a schedule to this overlay specifically states that a permit is not required. To the construction of an outdoor swimming pool associated with a dwelling unless a

specific requirement for this matter is specified in a schedule to this overlay. Construct a fence if specified in a schedule to this overlay. Buildings and works must be constructed in accordance with any requirements in a

schedule to this overlay. A schedule may include requirements relating to: Building setbacks. Building height. Plot ratio. Landscaping. Any other requirements relating to the design or built form of new development.

Page 27 of 133



A permit may be granted to construct a building or construct or carry out works which are not in accordance with any requirement in a schedule to this overlay, unless the schedule specifies otherwise.

Various schedules exist to this overlay; however, there are common requirements: Setbacks

Building should be setback from front, rear and side boundaries to reflect the pattern of buildings within the landscape lots that is characteristic of the area.

The setback of new buildings should retain the established development pattern. Carparking, garages and outbuildings

Garages, outbuildings and areas allocated for the parking of vehicles should be sited to minimise visibility from the street and be designed to be consistent with the character of the area.

Driveways should be developed with a permeable surface wherever possible. The combined site coverage of buildings and impermeable surfaces should respect the

pattern of building and open space of the area. Landscaping and fencing

Front fencing and landscaping should reflect the ‘buildings in landscape character’ of the area and enable passive surveillance to the street.

4.2.4 Works within Road Reserves

At present a permit for works is required from Moyne Shire Engineering for works within road reserves such as the construction of crossovers, landscaping, planting of vegetation and the construction of fencing.

4.2.5 Summary

The controls over building setbacks inherent in Rescode and the Design and Development Overlay have the potential to provide sufficient protection to sections of the Heritage Listed Norfolk Island Pines’ TPZs that fall inside private property. This can be achieved through ensuring appropriate setbacks and designs as specified within the planning tools as well as ensuring construction is sympathetic to the trees. For works within the road reserve which trigger a ‘Works within Road Reserve’ permit, construction of crossovers are to include best practice methods to ensure Araucaria heterophylla roots are protected according to the relevant Australian Standard. The accepted protocol for construction of crossovers within TPZs is detailed in section 4.4.2 Crossover Development.

4.3 Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) Specifications

In accordance with AS4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites, all retained trees should be afforded protection of their above ground (trunk, canopy etc.) and below ground (roots) components during construction. To facilitate protection the TPZ and Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of each heritage listed tree has been determined. These dimensions are supplied in Appendix 4.

4.3.1 TPZ Requirements

Damage to trees during development can be direct and indirect. Direct damage includes mechanical injury to the trunk, the severing of roots, or alterations to the soil environment in the immediate vicinity of tree roots (i.e. compaction or loss of organic matter).

Page 28 of 133



Indirect effects of site development are usually related to soil hydrology. This includes alterations to soil moisture content, changes in the level of the water table and drainage patterns (Coder 1995). The most common method of protecting trees during construction is by establishing a TPZ. These dimensions have been calculated according to AS 4970-2009 Protection of trees on development sites multiplying the trunk diameter at 1.4m above ground level (DBH) by 12 to a maximum of 15m radius. The TPZ should be a physical barrier of protective fencing that is a minimum of 1.8m high. It is erected around retained specimens (at the edge of the TPZ) before site works commence (refer Figure 8). Hi visibility bunting or parawebbing is not sufficient to protect trees.

Figure 8: TPZ fencing is erected around retained trees prior to site works.

Careful adherence to the following exclusions and inclusions will maintain the health and longevity of retained tree specimens. Exclude the following from taking place within any TPZ (adapted from AS 4970-2009): built structures or hard landscape features (i.e. paving, retaining walls) materials storage (i.e. equipment, fuel, building waste or rubble) soil disturbance (i.e. stripping or grade changes) excavation works including soil cultivation(specifically surface-dug trenches for underground

utilities) placement of fill lighting of fires preparation of chemicals, including preparation of cement products pedestrian or vehicular access (i.e. pathways). Include the following procedures in setting up and maintaining any TPZ (adapted from AS 4970-2009):

Page 29 of 133



erect warning signs at regular intervals along the entire length of any protective TPZ fencing (Figure 9)

construct TPZ fencing to prevent pedestrian access into the protected area. mulch the TPZ area to a depth of 150mm with woodchips (if available, use woodchips

generated from on-site tree clearing). irrigate TPZs periodically, as determined by the consulting arborist. TPZ guidelines need to adhere to all stages of the design and construction process and are relevant to all on-site utilities.

Figure 9: Examples of TPZ warning signs

4.3.2 Structural Root Zone (SRZ)

The SRZ is the minimum volume of roots required by the tree to remain stable in the ground. If the SRZ is breached the chances of windthrow are significantly increased, especially if roots are cut on the same side as prevailing winds. Windthrow is an event where the entire tree fails/falls over. Often, the tree is completely uprooted with devastating results. It is important to note that the SRZ is not related to tree health. It refers to the physical volume of roots required for the tree to remain stable in the ground. It is in no way related to the physiological requirements of the tree, but is the minimum volume of roots required for the tree to remain standing. (Mattheck and Breloer 1994). The SRZ dimension for each tree has been provided in Appendix 4. An overview of TPZ and SRZ dimensions have been represented to scale in Appendix 5. Greater detail of individual dimensions is supplied for each tree in maps within the individual tree report in Volume 2.

Page 30 of 133



4.4 Construction within TPZs

Whenever construction is proposed within a TPZ, an arborist report must be provided for review by Heritage Victoria and/or Moyne Shire Council. The report should follow the Council Arboriculture Victoria Reporting Guidelines for Developments (2008) and the specifications within the Australian Standard Protection of trees on development sites (AS 4970-2009). It should provide a comprehensive assessment of the current health and structure of the tree and consider heritage, cultural, ecological and landscape values. This report must assess the likely impact of construction/works upon the tree and its future longevity. The arborist report should refer to and adopt methodologies outlined in AS 4970-2009. When considering applications within the TPZ, additional construction/excavation within TPZs in the last 5 years must be considered, particularly in regards to encroachment thresholds. There must be no construction or excavation proposed within the SRZ of any tree. Non-destructive root investigation (Airspade®, Hydrovac or similar) should occur wherever proposed construction/excavation encroaches >10% of the total TPZ area; with the findings included in the arborist report. Alternative construction methodologies/materials should be considered for all construction within the TPZ. This should include: Maintaining existing soil grades Minimising excavation Non-destructive excavation (Pneumatic or Hydraulic excavation or similar) Permeable materials for all hard surfaces Consideration of final landscaping (i.e. trees planted within the TPZ area) Further information will be requested by council wherever the level of impact upon the tree/s is likely to result in the reduced aesthetic value and/or longevity of the tree/s. This request for further information must detail how the impact can be minimised to a satisfactory level.

4.4.1 Encroachment

Some construction encroachment into the TPZ is allowed as per AS 4970-2009. This is broadly classified minor and major encroachment and is determined by the degree of encroachment into the TPZ.

4.4.1.1 Minor encroachment Encroachment of less than 10% of the TPZ and outside the SRZ is deemed to be minor encroachment according to AS4970-2009. Detailed root investigations should not be required but must be compensated with an extension to the TPZ elsewhere (refer Figure 10). Variations must be made by the project arborist considering other relevant factors including tree health, vigour, stability, species sensitivity and soil characteristics.

Page 31 of 133



Figure 10: Example of TPZ encroachment and

compensatory offset (image from AS 4970-2009)

4.4.1.2 Major encroachment AS 4970-2009 Encroachment of more than 10% of the TPZ or into the SRZ is deemed to be major encroachment according to AS 4970-2009. The project arborist must demonstrate that the tree(s) would remain viable. The area lost to this encroachment should be compensated for elsewhere and contiguous with the TPZ. This may require root investigation by non-destructive methods and consideration of relevant factors tree health, vigour, stability, species sensitivity and soil characteristics.

4.4.2 Crossover Development

There has been a draft set of standard conditions written to try and assist the process of gaining a Heritage Victoria permit for the construction of a vehicle crossover within a road reserve that contains Heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla. Whilst these documents are used as an interim guide, they are not a whole of Council Policy and they have been developed as an engineering solution for the most part. This draft document provides some good initial guidelines; however, some modification can occur to reduce the impact of crossover installation upon Heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla. A major problem with applying a generic design template is that tree roots are opportunistic and will grow where conditions are the most suitable. They will always grow through soil in the path of least resistance and they will only continue to grow if soil conditions are favourable (Raven and Johnson 1992). This means that tree root growth does not fit a standard, with their size, depth and location variable between trees. With this variability in mind the original draft document is referenced below, with alteration and additional comments supplied to ensure that minimal damage occurs to the root zone within the TPZ.

Page 32 of 133



Draft Standard Conditions Vehicle Crossover Works under Norfolk Island Pines – Port Fairy Crossover Approval

Crossovers to the lot(s) would be approved subject to the following: Crossover is constructed to levels set by Council Grades of fall as per attached sketches No crossover is to be constructed until boxing / stringline levels are approved by Council. Council recommends that internal drives are not constructed until the design levels are

confirmed by Council. The Tree Protection Zone and Root Zone should be shown in relation to the tree, and new

crossover The new crossover should mostly be at the existing gradient; up to 10% encroachment into

the Tree Protection Zone can be accepted. The materials used for construction should be permeable to the sub-grade.

If greater than 10% encroachment is required or excavation below the existing grade is required, a non-destructive pneumatic or hydraulic excavation (NDE) or similar must occur by an arborist with AQF arboriculture level 4 minimum for a preliminary root investigation. The excavation should follow along the proposed excavation lines on both sides of the crossover. The report should provide photographs of and detail: the number and diameter of roots encountered their location in relation to the design plan the likely impact upon the roots and tree health.

Where large and significant roots (>60mm) or large root complexes (i.e. more than 5 roots 20-60mm diameter within 1m2 area) are encountered mitigation & compensation measures to retain these roots must be provided. This may range from alternative design options, permeable material use, and improvement of the TPZ area where construction is not proposed with mulch.

Several options that may be appropriate are provided in the report Moyne Shire – Norfolk Island Pine; Management Options (Waters 2004) which should be considered. General Crossover Construction Points

All works should be compliant with Australian Standard AS 4970 – Protection of Trees on Development Sites;

A Tree Protection Fence (TPF) must be erected on the perimeter of the construction area (as per section 4.3.1) for the period of construction;

Crossovers to be constructed with approved concrete pavers or other council endorsed product in the planning permit, as per sample previously submitted to Council

No debris is to be placed within the road reserve or TPZ area as per AS 4970-2009; Depending upon the council approved design plan, excavate a trench by hand or non-

destructive excavation (NDE) the full length of each crossover (on each side of the crossover) to the depth required to install the subgrade material.

Should any roots be located during this excavation, the entire root within the proposed crossover area must be exposed either by hand or NDE.

Once the roots have been exposed, the remainder of the crossover area can be carefully excavated to the required depth by machine.

Page 33 of 133



A 20mm sand bed should be provided, with approved hollow concrete pavers overlaid to level where finished surface is flush with new surrounding topsoil levels.

Voids in pavers should be filled with topsoil and grass seed The finished level at each building line shall be as marked by Council on survey stake The maximum crossover width is 4m A fall in the crossover from the building line toward the road of 40mm, for a distance of 2m

shall be provided to allow for any future footpath construction Nature strip areas must be appropriately top soiled (recommended combined depth of

existing and new top soil is 250mm), grassed, watered and temporarily fenced from pedestrian and vehicle access for a sufficient period of time to ensure adequate re-establishment.

4.4.3 Car Parking

Car parking is a premium commodity in Port Fairy, particularly over the peak tourist periods where there is a spike in vehicle numbers. This often results in cars being parked wherever there is apparently vacant space. As there is a lack of formal parking bays this often results in cars parking beneath the Araucaria heterophylla canopies and up to the trunk. As discussed in section 4.1.1, parking has the potential to compact the pores in the soil and cause erosion of the soil surface. Whilst the coastal township is expected to have a soil composition that is predominantly sand where compaction is relatively minimal, the issues associated with soil erosion and potential root damage still remain a concern.

Soils are composed of different particles that make horizons naturally through the soil profile . Figure 11 provides a general example and whilst not all these horizons are likely to be present at Port Fairy, the O and A horizons do exist and these are crucial to the nutrient levels of the soil. Car parking can cause compaction or erosion of the O and A horizons. This in turn can impact upon tree health as reduced mineral availability in the soil can reduce tree vigour, which decreases the tree’s ability to tolerate impact such as root damage, pest/disease, drought etc. Mechanical damage of exposed roots at the soil surface is also more likely following erosion of the soil surface. Grass loss at the top of the soil surface can increase the rate of drying in the soil particularly over summer, resulting in less water availability to tree roots.

Figure 11: General soil profile and horizons (Ashman and Puri 2002)

Page 34 of 133



Erosion can be controlled by installing soil stabilising structures or through the application of mulch. An example of a soil stabilising structure is Gravelpave2, a structure that provides a heavy load bearing support and true containment of gravel to create a porous surface with unlimited traffic volume and/or duration time for parking (Invisible structures Inc. 2011) (refer Figure 12).

Figure 12: Example of Gravelpave2 grid structure with geotextile fabric and aggregate fill.

This or a similar system is ideal to be installed where car parking is proposed as it will contain the aggregate, allow for water and oxygen infiltration and distributes the load of a parked car. Geotechnical engineer's recommendations and manufacturer specifications are required for a proposed design and implementation to provide adequate support. Mechanical damage of surface roots and the tree trunk should be avoided in either system by ensuring there is no parking allowed within the SRZ (refer Appendix 4 for SRZ specifications). This can be achieved with the installation of bollards or boulders at the periphery of the SRZ. If bollards are to be installed they will require careful hand or non-destructive excavation to ensure that large roots are not damaged. If roots >40mm are encountered, the position of the bollard should be shifted to ensure that the root is retained. To maximise parking bays can be created. This can involve simple line marking where hard surfaces are created or alternatively, the installation of pine posts at the surface. These will require anchoring into the ground with a spike or some other fixing solution. Careful excavation and investigation for any roots beneath the proposed post location should occur to the required depth. Post relocation or alternative methods should occur where roots >40mm are encountered that will be damaged. These tops of the posts can be painted to provide further visual cues for parking location (refer Figure 13). Bollard installation should be installed in high demand areas for parking first (e.g. Gipps St, North end of Sackville St), with other areas to have installation as budget allows.

Page 35 of 133



Figure 13: Example of pine posts used to create parking bays

Page 36 of 133



4.5 Tree Pruning Requirements-Araucaria heterophylla Pruning works must be carried out by fully qualified arborists with demonstrated experience in the management of large and mature trees. The minimum qualification should be: A National Certificate in Horticulture (Arboriculture) AQF Level 4. All pruning undertaken must conform to the AS-4373 2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees. Guidelines for general tree pruning have been provided in section 5.4. Tree pruning specifications for power line clearance has been provided in section 4.5.2.

4.5.1 Canopy lift pruning

There has previously been uplifting of Araucaria heterophylla at varying heights, with some trees within Sackville Street raised approximately 8m (refer Figure 14). Varying lifting heights creates inconsistency across the uniform plantings and can be deleterious to tree health and longevity. This level of clearance is extreme and is not warranted for traffic or pedestrian access. To resolve these issues canopy lifting for all street trees will be undertaken in accordance with canopy lifting guidelines in section 5.5.1. This should be a minimum 2.5m over footpaths and 4-5.5m over roads, depending upon the requirements of the road classification.

Figure 14: Trees along Sackville Street that have been canopy lifted to approximately 8m

Page 37 of 133



4.5.2 Power line Clearance

Given the Heritage listing of the trees it is recommended that power line clearance is monitored closely. All pruning events and associated documentation should be recorded. The level of clearance required for heritage listed Araucaria heterophylla should be strictly in accordance with Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations, 2010. According to these regulations:

‘the responsible person must create and maintain the required clearance space around these trees. In relation to trees of cultural or environmental significance, the cutting or removal thereof should be restricted to the minimum extent required to ensure compliance with the code’.

Pursuant to this, ‘notification of intended cutting or removal is to be provided when the responsible person intends to cut or remove a tree of cultural or environmental significance for power line clearance’.

Details must be provided of: the impact of the cutting or removal of the tree; and the actions to be taken to minimise that impact.

Notice must be given: at least 14 days and not more than 60 days before the intended cutting or removal is to

occur; and in writing or by publication in a newspaper circulating generally in the locality of the land in

which the tree is to be cut or removed. Additional power line options have been discussed in section 5.5.2, with details of minimum clearance spaces for Aerial Bundled Cable (ABC) and insulated lines have been provided in Table 13 and Table 14 of this section.

4.6 Mulch Application

Mulching heritage trees is important as, whilst many of these trees are in fair condition, they are vintage trees that will become more susceptible to injury or trauma as time progresses. As they continue to age they will also have a reduced ability to recover from injury or trauma, which may lead to a rapid decline. This has the potential to significantly alter the landscape of the township. Mulch has many benefits to plants including: Soil moisture conservation Soil compaction reduction Grass and weed suppression Reduction in soil erosion Soil structure improvements An increase in soil fertility Moderation of soil temperature on a diurnal and seasonal basis (Harris, Clark & Matheny

1999)

Page 38 of 133



Where car parking is not proposed it is recommended that mulch is applied, particularly within the SRZs. Shallow edging can be installed to retain the mulch in place. Investigation of the roots beneath the proposed post location should occur to the required depth to ensure that damage to tree roots is minimal. Where roots >40mm are likely to be damaged the edging will require repositioning or alternative methods sought for installation. Whilst this type of installation will benefit all trees, the priority of installation should be for trees in poor health, followed by trees with fair health and finally trees in good health.

4.7 Leaf/Branchlet Litter

4.7.1 Council Collection

Leaves, nuts, fruits or smaller sized branches and deadwood will drop from trees from time to time. This is a natural occurrence and does not warrant the removal of a tree; however, to aid in aesthetics and ‘cleanliness’ of the streetscape council provides support to residents with branchlet clean-up. At present the system for the collection of the leaves and branchlets of nature strip trees involves the resident collecting and piling the leaves on the nature strip and contacts council to notify that removal is required. A small skid steer loader (i.e. Bobcat) is then used by Council staff to pick up and remove the branchlets. This system is inefficient and costly in its application on a case by case basis and as such, a branchlet collection is to be implemented. Council will conduct branchlet collection on a quarterly basis, with residents required to pile all branchlets from their property on the nature strip in the week leading up to collection. Any branchlets located on residential property will not be collected by council staff. If desired, residents can clear branchlets from their nature strip and dispose of these at their own expense at any other time of the year. In the event of high winds or storms an increase in branchlet drop may occur. A council representative will assess the volume of these branchlets and may implement an interim clean-up. This will be entirely at Council’s discretion and depend upon budget allowances at the time.

4.7.2 Gutter Blockage

Leaf drop onto the roof of any proposed residential construction in close proximity of the existing trees is inevitable. These leaves and branchlets have the potential to block gutters, resulting in localised flooding and premature rusting of stormwater components. Removal of leaves, debris and branchlets from gutters is considered ordinary home maintenance and is the responsibility of the private property owner. Gutter guarding may be beneficial (refer Figure 15), although where buildings are subject to Heritage Overlays, the design may require approval from Heritage Victoria prior to installation.

Figure 15: Gutter guarding on a tiled roof.

Page 39 of 133



4.8 Araucaria heterophylla Interpretive Signage As a township steeped in history, many of the buildings, roads and trees are heritage listed. The significance of buildings and roads has been communicated to visitors of Port Fairy through interpretive signage throughout the township (refer Figure 16). The significance and history of the trees, particularly the Araucaria heterophylla within Port Fairy can also be described using interpretive signage. This could be incorporated with the building and street information to create a heritage tree walk within the township. It is envisioned that the Port Fairy Historical Society could take a lead role in a joint venture.

Figure 16: Informative plaque at the corner of Bank and Sackville Streets

4.9 Reassessment

It is recommended that a walkover assessment of the trees occurs every 2 years to determine any significant change in condition or damage and provide management options. This will ensure that the trees remain at an acceptable level of risk and remain a long-term feature within the wider landscape. A full reassessment should be conducted every 6-8 years.

Page 40 of 133



5. Street Tree Management Plan

5.1 Audit Review and Discussion

A total of 79 streets have been assessed as part of the audit, 5 of which have been split into separate assessment sections due to either distinct a change in existing vegetation type or future planting requirements. Bank Street, Griffiths Street, James Street and the Princes Highway have 2 sections each and Sackville Street has 3 sections due to a lack of planting opportunity within the central business section. This has resulted in 85 audit areas. Of these areas, there are 25 that do not contain any trees at all.

5.2 Species composition

There are a total of 1150 trees within the streets of Port Fairy, with the predominant species being Australian natives, with a smaller proportion of exotic species, such as Olea europaea (Olive) and Cupressus macrocarpa (Monterey Cypress). Figure 17 provides an overview of the number of each species, where it can be seen that Araucaria heterophylla represent the largest number of street trees assessed.

Figure 17: Predominant species composition

Page 41 of 133



5.3 Average Health, Condition and ULE

The average condition and longevity of each assessment area has been completed for the audit. Table 10 provides these values and it can be seen that the average health of the majority of the trees within the streets is good and the average structure is fair. The average ULE of most is relatively long at 10-20 years or greater.

Table 10. Average ratings and number of assessed areas

Average Health Average Structure Average ULE

Good 48 Good 16 20+ years 24

Fair 9 Fair 38 10-20 years 28

Poor 3 Poor 6 5-10 years 5 N/A* 25 N/A* 25 1-5 years 2 0 years 1 N/A* 25 TOTAL 85 85 85

*This category represents audits where there are no trees present.

The 3 streets with poor average health