ARBORICULTURAL REPORT
Darebin creek
Abercorn Ave footbridge
Alphington
Prepared by:
Steve O’Grady
(Dip. Hort. Arboriculture)
Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd
Commissioned by:
Ben English
Melbourne Water
Date: 23/11/ 2011
Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd
0411 184 199
[email protected]
Page 1
CONTENTS
OBJECTIVES…………………………………………………. 3
METHODOLOGY…………………………………………….. 3
TREE DATA…………………………………………………… 4
SITE MAP …………………………………………………….12
FINDINGS……………………………………………………. 13
RECOMMENDATIONS …………………………………….13
DEFINITION OF TERMS…………………………………... 14
REFERENCES……………………………………………….. 18
Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd
0411 184 199
[email protected]
Page 2
Objectives

To assess the large willows trees at site and recommend on their health and
stability.
Methodology




A site inspection was carried out on Tuesday 13th September 2011.
Tree heights, canopy widths are estimated. DBH is measured
Trees were marked at the site using a numbered metal tag.
All inspections were visual and from the ground.
Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd
0411 184 199
[email protected]
Page 3
Tree Data
Tree
#
Common
Name
1. Crack
Willow
2. Crack
Willow
3. Crack
Willow
Crack
4. Willow
5.
Crack
Willow
Crack
6. Willow
7. Crack
Willow
Crack
8.
Willow
Botanical
Name
D.B.H.
(mm)
Height
Width
Age
Health
Structure
S.U.L.E
Location at site
Salix
fragilis
1300
10
12
Mature
Fair
Poor
5yrs
Mid- stream below
foot bridge
Salix
fragilis
Multi
stemmed
5
20
Young
Fair
VeryPoor
0yrs
Mid- stream below
foot bridge
Young willow has grown in the creek from a fallen
limb or tree.
Salix
fragilis
1200
Multi
stemmed
10
10
Mature
Very
Poor
Failed
0yrs
Mid- stream below
foot bridge
Multiple stems growing off stump of large fallen tree.
Salix
fragilis
700
2 trunks
10
5
Mature
Poor
VeryPoor
0yrs
Mid- stream below
foot bridge
Medium sized, Rot in base, hollows in lower trunk,
one split trunk uprooted high likelihood of dropping
large limb into creek.
Salix
fragilis
400
8
10
SemiMature
Poor
VeryPoor
0yrs
Mid- stream below
foot bridge
Medium sized leaning tree, rot in base, high likelihood
of dropping into creek.
Salix
fragilis
400
5
12
Mature
Very
poor
Failed
0yrs
Mid- stream below
foot bridge
Medium sized tree, has split at the base and partially
uprooted, tree is now hanging in tree 4, high likelihood
of dropping into creek.
Salix
fragilis
Multi
stemmed
1000
15
12
Semi Mature
Good
VeryPoor
0yrs
Mid- stream below
foot bridge
Multi trunked tree growing hard against footbridge.
Likely to split apart as it matures,
0yrs
Mid- stream below
foot bridge
Large willow. Another fallen willow washed up in
base of this tree forming a blockage in the creek. signs
of rot in trunk and large limbs, high likelihood of
dropping large limb into creek.
Salix
fragilis
500
Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd
0411 184 199
[email protected]
10
12
Mature
Poor
Poor
Page 4
Comments
Large willow – rot in base of tree, large leaning trunk,
high likelihood of dropping large limb into creek.
Tree
#
9.
Common
Name
Crack
Willow
Crack
10. Willow
11.
Crack
Willow
Crack
12. Willow
Botanical
Name
D.B.H.
(mm)
Height
Width
Age
Health
Salix
fragilis
700
2 trunks
9
12
Mature
Fair
Fair
5yrs
South bank below
foot bridge
Medium sized willow – leaning against steep bank on
south side of creek , rot in base of tree
Salix
fragilis
700
9
12
Mature
Fair
Fair
5yrs
South bank above
foot bridge
Medium sized willow – leaning against rock wall on
south side of creek, growing over pedestrian path.
Rot in base of tree.
4
10
Mature
Very
Poor
Failed
0yrs
Mid-stream above
foot bridge
Medium sized willow – fallen into creek, dead trunk.
With epicormic stems from base.
12
15
Mature
Fair
Poor
5yrs
Mid-stream above
foot bridge
Large sized willow –leaning trunks with rot near base
of tree, high likelihood of dropping large limb into
creek.
1000
2 trunks
6
12
Mature
Very
Poor
Failed
0yrs
Mid-stream m
above foot bridge
Medium sized willow – fallen into creek, With
epicormic stems from base.
750
6
12
Mature
Poor
Failed
0yrs
North bank 100m
above foot bridge
Medium sized willow – uprooted, fallen into creek.
With epicormic stems along it.
5yrs
North bank 100m
above foot bridge
This group of four trees are fairly similar. Medium
sized trees all growing on a lean over the creek. There
is a high likelihood of them uprooting and dropping
into creek especially during high flows.
Salix
fragilis
800
Salix
fragilis
1000
2 trunks
13.
Crack
Willow
Salix
fragilis
14.
Crack
Willow
Salix
fragilis
15.
Crack
Willow
Salix
fragilis
Group of
4 trees
500 mm
average
Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd
0411 184 199
[email protected]
10
15
Mature
Good
Structure
Poor
S.U.L.E
Page 5
Location at site
Comments
Tree
#
16.
Common
Name
Botanical
Name
D.B.H.
(mm)
Crack
Willow
Salix
fragilis
1000
15
Height
Width
Age
Health
15
Mature
Very
Poor
Structure
Poor
S.U.L.E
Location at site
Comments
0yrs
South bank 100 m
above foot bridge
Large willow in poor condition near drain outlet. Large
amount of dieback in canopy, high likelihood of
dropping large limbs into creek. Rot in base.
0yrs
South bank 160 m
above foot bridge
Ash tree growing next to bank and Willow No 18
17.
Desert
Ash
Fraxinus
250
8
6
Semi
mature
Good
18.
Crack
Willow
Salix
fragilis
450
10
15
Mature
Fair
Poor
0yrs
South bank 160 m
above foot bridge
Medium sized willow in fair condition rot in trunk and
leaning
Salix
fragilis
300
1
6
Young
Very
poor
Failed
0yrs
North bank 150 m
above foot bridge
Small sized willow uprooted and regrowing in stream
800
6 stems
1
6
Young
Fair
Poor
0yrs
North bank 150 m
above foot bridge
Poor
Very
Poor
0yrs
Mid-stream near
north bank 160 m
above foot bridge
5yrs
South bank 185 m
above foot bridge
19. Crack
Willow
20. Crack
Willow
21.
22.
Crack
Willow
Crack
Willow
Salix
fragilis
Salix
fragilis
500
Salix
fragilis
5 trunks
2700
Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd
0411 184 199
[email protected]
8
15
8
15
Mature
Mature
Fair
Poor
Poor
Page 6
Small sized willow 6 stems possibly the same tree
Blockage up against base.
Small sized willow in poor condition decay in trunk
and leaning over creek epicormics growing from base.
rot in base of tree, high likelihood of dropping large
limbs into creek
Large willow with large broken limbs rot in lower
trunks, high likelihood of dropping large limbs into
creek and towards pedestrian path
Tree
#
23.
24.
Common
Name
Botanical
Name
D.B.H.
(mm)
Height
Width
Age
Health
Crack
Willow
Salix
fragilis
2 trunks
900
15
15
Mature
Fair
Crack
Willow
25.
Crack
Willow
26.
Crack
Willow
Salix
fragilis
Salix
fragilis
Salix
fragilis
Group of
4 trees
400 mm
average
500
1300
Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd
0411 184 199
[email protected]
12
9
10
8
9
12
Mature
Mature
Mature
Good
Very
Poor
Poor
Structure
Poor
Fair
Very Poor
VeryPoor
S.U.L.E
Location at site
5yrs
South bank 190 m
above foot bridge
5yrs
South bank 210m
above foot bridge
0yrs
5yrs
Page 7
South bank 220m
above foot bridge
North bank 220m
above foot bridge
Comments
Large willow with large broken limbs rot in lower
trunks, high likelihood of dropping large limbs into
creek and towards pedestrian path
This group of four trees are fairly similar. Medium
sized trees all growing close to the
Medium sized tree all growing on a lean over the
creek. Rot and fungi in trunk. Most of the canopy is
epicormic shoots. There is a high likelihood tree
uprooting into the creek.
Medium sized tree all growing on a lean over the
creek. Rot in trunk. Most of the canopy is epicormic
shoots. There is a high likelihood tree uprooting into
the creek.
tree 1
Tree 3
Tree 5
Tree 7
Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd
0411 184 199
[email protected]
Tree 2
Tree 4
Tree 6
Tree 8
Page 8
Tree 9
Tree 10
Tree 11
Tree 12
Tree 13
15 ( four trees)
Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd
0411 184 199
[email protected]
Tree 14
Tree 16
Page 9
tree 19
Tree 17 & 18
Tree 20
Tree 21
Tree 22
24 ( 4 trees)
Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd
0411 184 199
[email protected]
Tree 23
Tree 25
Page 10
Trees Down stream
Tree 26
Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd
0411 184 199
[email protected]
Page 11
25 26
Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd
0411 184 199
[email protected]
Page 12
FINDINGS:
There are 31 Willow trees and 1 Ash tree in this section of the creek. There is also 5
or 6 large willows just downstream of the area that are not included in this report.
Most of the trees are mature specimens and are in various stages of decline. Many of
the trees have lost large limbs or have uprooted from the base. Up- rooted trees
regrow from the base and also from the trunk to form new willows that grow
vigorously and usually have poor stability.
Six (3,6,11,13,14,19) of the trees have failed either uprooted or split near the base.
Six (2,4,5,7,25,26 ) of the trees have very poor structure suggesting that tree failure is
imminent.
Fourteen (1,8,12,15,16,17,18,19,21,22,23) of the trees have poor structure and have a high
likely hood of tree or limb failure.
Six (9,10,24) of the trees have fair structure and are less likely to fail in the short term
they are still likely to drop limbs.
15 Trees (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,11,12,13,14,19,21,26) are in mid-stream.
The other 17 (9,10,15,16,17,18,20,22,23,24,25) trees are very close to the bank and would be
within the stream when the creek is in flood. There are several blockages forming due
to fallen willow limbs and trunks.
Because of the large amount of fallen tree debris the scrappy regrowth, the blockages
and litter the aesthetic value of these trees is greatly diminished.
Recommendations
Remove 32 trees (sites 1-26) and replace with a more suitable planting scheme on the
creek banks
Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd
0411 184 199
[email protected]
Page 13
DEFINITION OF TERMS


DBH – The total diameter of the tree trunk at 1.3 m from ground level.
Where there is a multi- stemmed tree the assessor will estimate the ‘TOTAL’
DBH of the stems combined.
TREE HEALTH
Good: The tree is demonstrating good or exceptional growth for the species. The tree
should exhibit a full canopy of foliage and have only minor pest or disease
problems. Foliage colour size and density should be typical of a health
specimen of that species.
Fair: The tree is in reasonable condition and growing well for the species. The tree
should exhibit an adequate canopy of foliage. There may be some dead wood
in the crown, some grazing by insect or animals may be evident, and/or foliage
colour, size or density may be atypical for a healthy specimen of that species.
Poor: The tree is not growing to its full capacity. Extension growth of the laterals
may be minimal. The canopy may be thinning or sparse. Large amounts of
dead wood may be evident throughout the crown, as well as significant pest
and disease problems. Other symptoms of stress indicating tree decline may
be present.
Very poor: The tree appears to be in a state of decline, and the canopy may be very
thin and sparse. A significant volume of deed wood may be present in the
canopy, or pest and disease problems may be causing a severe decline in tree
health.
Dead: The tree is dead.
Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd
0411 184 199
[email protected]
Page 14
STRUCTURE:





Good
Fair
Poor
Very poor
Failed
The definition of structure is the likelihood of the tree to fail under normal condition.
A tree with good structure is highly unlikely to suffer any significant failure, while a
tree with poor to very poor structure is likely or very likely to fail.
Good: The tree has a well-defined and balanced crown. Branch unions appear to be
strong, with no defects evident in the trunks or the branches. Major limbs are
well defined. The tree would be considered a good example for the species.
Probability of significant failure is highly unlikely.
Fair: The tree has some minor problems in the structure of the crown. The crown
may be slightly out of balance at some branch unions or branches may be
exhibiting minor structural faults. If the tree has a single trunk, this may be on
a slight lean, or be exhibiting minor defects. Probability of significant failure
is low.
Poor: The tree may have a poorly structured crown, the crown may be unbalanced,
or exhibit large gaps. Major limbs may not be well defined; branches may be
rubbing or crossing over. Branch unions may be poor or faulty at the point of
attachment. The tree may have suffered major root damage. Probability of
significant failure is moderate.
Very poor: The tree has a poorly structured crown. The crown is unbalanced, or
exhibits large gaps. Major limbs are not well defined. Branch unions may be
poor or faulty at the point of attachment. A section of the tree has failed, or is
in imminent danger of failure. Active failure may be present, or failure is
probably in the immediate future.
Failed: A significant section of the tree or the whole tree has failed.
Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd
0411 184 199
[email protected]
Page 15
Safe Useful Life Expectancy (SULE):





Unsafe or 0 years
Less than 5 years
5 to 10 years
10 to 20 years
20 +
Useful life expectancy is approximately how long a tree can be retained safely and
usefully in the landscape providing site conditions remain unchanged and the
recommended works are completed.
It is based on the principals of safety and usefulness in the landscape and should not
reflect personal opinions on species suitability.
Unsafe or 0 years: The tree is considered dangerous in the location and/or no longer
provides any amenity value.
Less Than 5 years: The tree under normal circumstances and without extra stress
should be safe and have value of maximum of 5 years. The tree will need to be
replaced in the short term. Replacement plants should be established as soon
as possible if there is efficient space, or consideration should be given to the
removal of the tree to facilitate replanting.
5 to 10 Years: The tree under normal circumstances and without extra stress should be
safe and have value of maximum of 10 years. Trees in this category may
require regular inspections and maintenance particularly if they are large
specimens. Replacement plants should be established in the short term if there
is sufficient space, or consideration should be given to the removal of the tree
to facilitate replanting. However, this is management decision and is beyond
the scope of this inventory.
10 to 20 Years: The tree under normal circumstances and without extra stress should
be safe and of value of up to 20 years. During this period, regular inspections
and maintenance will be required.
20 + Years: The tree under normal circumstances and without extra stress should be
safe and of value of more than years. During this period, regular inspections
and maintenance will be required.
Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd
0411 184 199
[email protected]
Page 16
Priority:






N/A
Very Low
Low
Moderate
High
Urgent
Priority describes the urgency of works that are recommended. The recommended
works would be used to develop maintenance regimes and maintenance programs.
N/A: No works required
Very Low: recommended works could be carried out at any time (e.g.
formative pruning that will not become critical for the tree within the next five
to ten years, removal of very small trees).
Low: Recommended works should be carried out within three years (e.g.
clearance pruning that is just within code).
Moderate: Recommended works should be carried out within eighteen months
(e.g. the tree is significantly within code but not yet causing a problem).
High: Recommended works should be carried out within nine months (e.g.
structural pruning where the tree has significant defects that may cause failure
resulting in damage or injury).
Urgent: Recommended works should be carried out as soon as possible (e.g.
tree removal where the tree shows signs of immanent failure that is likely to
cause significant damage or injury).
Landscape Rating:



High
Medium
Low
High: The tree may be significant in the landscape, offer shade and other
amenities such as screening. The tree may assist with erosion control, offer a
windbreak or perform a vital function in the location (e.g. habitat, shade,
flowers or fruit).
Medium: The tree may offer some screening in the landscape or serve a
particular function in the location.
Low: The tree offers very little in the way of screening or amenity
Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd
0411 184 199
[email protected]
Page 17
References
University of Melbourne . (2002). The Burnley Plant Directory. Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia.
Disclaimer
Although Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd uses all due care and skill in providing you the information made available in
this report, to the extent permitted by law Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd otherwise excludes all warranties of any kind,
either expressed or implied.
To the extent permitted by law, you agree that Arbor Solutions is not liable to you or any other person or entity for
any loss or damage caused or alleged to have caused (including loss or damage resulting from negligence), either
directly or indirectly, by your use of the information (including by way of example, arboricultural advice) made
available to you in this report. Without limiting this disclaimer, in no event will Arbour Solutions Pty Ltd be liable
to you for any lost revenue or profits, or for special, indirect, consequential or incidental damage (however caused
and regardless of the theory of liability) arising out of or related to your use of that information, even if Arbor
Solutions Pty Ltd has been advised of the possibility of such loss or damage.
This disclaimer is governed by the law in force in the State of Victoria, Australia.
Arbor Solutions Pty Ltd
0411 184 199
[email protected]
Page 18