DOCSLIB.ORG

Tree Logic Pty Ltd

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tree Logic Pty Ltd Arboricultural Assessment Precinct Structure Plan - 1059 Beveridge North west. Prepared for: Fiona McDougal Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA) Prepared by: Bruce Callander | Tree Logic Pty Ltd 15 October 2013 Tree Logic Pty Ltd Unit 4, 21 Eugene Terrace Ringwood Vic 3134 Ph 03 9870 7700 treelogic.com.au Arboricultural Assessment Report – Beveridge PSP 1059. Contents. Arboricultural Assessment .............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Precinct Structure Plan - 1059 Beveridge North west. ....................................................................................................... 1 1 Executive summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 2 Client Brief .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 3 Key Objectives: ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 4 Method: ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 5 Observations .............................................................................................................................................................................. 7 6 Discussion: ............................................................................................................................................................................... 11 7 Photographic catalogue: ..................................................................................................................................................... 16 8 Conclusion and Recommendations: .............................................................................................................................. 18 References: ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Appendix 1A: Individual Tree assessment details: PSP 1059 - Beveridge North west .................................... 20 Appendix 1B: Individual Tree assessment details: PSP 1059 - Beveridge North west .................................... 21 Appendix 2: Tree numbers & locations: PSP 1059 - Beveridge North west........................................................... 22 Appendix 3: Arboricultural Descriptors ................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix 4: Tree protection zones .......................................................................................................................................... 27 Precedent disclaimer and copyright .......................................................................................................................................... 31 Report assumptions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Version Site Date Author Version File No control Version 1 PSP 1059 - Beveridge 19/09/2013 Bruce Callander Draft 13_5161 North west Version 2 PSP 1059 - Beveridge 15/10/13 Bruce Callander Final with amendments to 13_5161 North west plans and comments Arboricultural Assessment Report – Beveridge PSP 1059. 1 Executive summary 1.1 Tree Logic was commissioned to undertake an arboricultural assessment of trees in the Beveridge North West precinct on behalf Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA). 1.2 The tree population was relatively sparse across the site with most trees being concentrated into grouped plantings for the purposes of windbreaks, woodlots, revegetation, creek bank stabilisation, shade and ornamental garden plantings. 1.3 Three hundred and thirty five (335) tree features were inspected within the study area including two hundred and thirty three (233) individual trees and one hundred and two (102) tree group features comprising approximately 6,700 additional trees. 1.4 The grouped trees includes countless small planted mixed natives in numerous windrows around creek-lines and paddock or property boundaries. 1.5 Due to the grouped nature of the plantings many trees have grown in the shelter of surrounding vegetation. If surrounding trees are to be removed there is the potential for the remaining trees to be damaged by becoming exposed to new wind forces. 1.6 Within the tree population there were forty one specimens which were classed as remnant, naturally occurring indigenous trees based on the species, large size, old age and deteriorating condition. In arboricultural terms many of these trees are in poor condition and would be considered unsuitable to retain but may have higher ecological value due to presence of decayed hollows and cavities. 1.7 Based on observations the majority of other trees were considered to be planted for purposes of windbreaks, creek bank stabilisation, revegetation, shade and garden purposes. 1.8 Each of the assessed tree features was attributed an ‘Arboricultural Rating’. The arboricultural rating correlates the combination of tree condition factors (health, structure & form) with tree amenity value and reflects the retention value of the tree(s). Refer to Table 1. Total tree Trees in tree Table 1: Arboricultural rating Total trees groups groups Very High 2 0 High 30 3 ≈505 Moderate 101 29 ≈1,759 Low 93 67 ≈2,967 None 7 1 ≈67 Total 233 102 ≈2990 1.9 Not all ‘Moderate or Low’ rated tree features should be dismissed as candidates poorly suited for retention, though overall, the retention of such trees should not compromise design intent. 1.9.1 In general Moderate rated trees were of semi-mature age and size and could be readily replaced during development of the site. In certain landscape settings, smaller specimens in otherwise reasonable condition have the potential to offer an established tree resource, even if only as an interim measure. 1.9.2 Low rated trees with health or structural deficiencies are generally not desirable candidates for retention. Windrows with health and structural defects should generally be removed. 1.10 Many trees nominated for retention including those of Very High, High or Moderate arboricultural rating could benefit from some level of tree crown maintenance or reduction pruning to ensure they can be retained for the long term. Pruning can reduce the potential for further limb shed and thereby minimise problems associated limb failure and infection with decay organisms. 1.11 Trees attributed an arboricultural value of None are the least suited to retention on arboricultural grounds, having significant health and / or structural defects. arboricultural report 13_5161 psp 1059-beveridge north west v2 3 of 32 15/10/2013 Arboricultural Assessment Report – Beveridge PSP 1059. 2 Client Brief The Metropolitan Planning Authority (MPA) commissioned Tree Logic to undertake an arboricultural survey of tree features within the area defined as Precinct 1059 – Beveridge North-west region to inform the future precinct design process. The tree study area, Precinct Structure Plan 1059, comprised approximately 1,259 hectares and is defined by the Hume Freeway to the east, Camerons Lane to the south, Old Sydney Road to the west and by the urban Growth boundary and nominated property boundaries to the north. Refer to Plate 1. PSP 1059 Plate 1: Aerial image of tree study area PSP 1059 - Beveridge North-west Area. The land is currently used for a variety of rural purposes and is zoned Urban Growth Zone with a number of overlays affecting parcels within the site. It is divided into 9 allotments of varying size with the largest parcel being under the management of Yarra Valley Water indicated on the above plan by the number 1. 3 Key Objectives: The scope of the assessment included determining the species, origin, health and structural integrity of the trees within the precinct as well as the arboricultural value, landscape value and the ability to survive in an urban environment. arboricultural report 13_5161 psp 1059-beveridge north west v2 4 of 32 15/10/2013 Arboricultural Assessment Report – Beveridge PSP 1059. Whilst the assessment included reviewing all trees in the precinct, the scope was confined to recording only large and very large tree features that are of High or Very High arboricultural value. The assessment also included trees in the road reserves. Where access to private land was denied or unable to be obtained an assessment was undertaken from the boundary to obtain a basic understanding of the value of trees within the restricted site. Only Property 2 was not accessed. The purpose of the report is to identify the retention values of trees within the precinct. • The arboricultural report tables the collected data, illustrating the retention value of all surveyed trees on a plan of the PSP area, and includes discussion and recommendations regarding suitability for retention in an urban environment, required protection zones (AS4970-2009) and strategies to maximise longer term viability, where relevant. • The assessment data
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Range Size and Growth Temperature Influence Eucalyptus Species Responses to an Experimental Heatwave
    Macquarie University PURE Research Management System This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Aspinwall, M.J., Pfautsch, S., Tjoelker, M.G., et al. (2019), Range size and growth temperature influence Eucalyptus species responses to an experimental heatwave. Global Change Biology, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 1665– 1684. which has been published in final form at: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14590 This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. 1 DR. MICHAEL J ASPINWALL (Orcid ID : 0000-0003-0199-2972) DR. JOHN E DRAKE (Orcid ID : 0000-0003-1758-2169) DR. OWEN K ATKIN (Orcid ID : 0000-0003-1041-5202) Article type : Primary Research Articles Range size and growth temperature influence Eucalyptus species responses to an experimental heatwave Running title: mechanisms of tree heatwave tolerance Michael J. Aspinwall1,2*, Sebastian Pfautsch1, Mark G. Tjoelker1, Angelica Vårhammar1, Malcolm Possell3, John E. Drake1,4, Peter B. Reich1,5, David T. Tissue1, Owen K. Atkin6, Paul D. Rymer1, Siobhan Dennison7, Steven C. Van Sluyter7 1Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith NSW 2751, Australia 2Department of Biology, University of North Florida, 1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville FL 32224 USA 3School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia 4Forest and Natural Resources Management, SUNY-ESF, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY, 13210 USA. 5Department of Forest Resources,
    [Show full text]
  • Pinturas Antiincrustantes Derivadas De Plantas Terrestres: Una Solución Segura Para El Ambiente En El Control De La Bioincrustación
    ISSN 1688-6593 INNOTEC 2021, No. 22 (e559) https://doi.org/10.26461/22.01 REVISTA DEL LABORATORIO TECNOLÓGICO DEL URUGUAY Revisiones Pinturas antiincrustantes derivadas de plantas terrestres: una solución segura para el ambiente en el control de la bioincrustación Antifouling paints derived from terrestrial plants: a safe solution for the environment in the control of biofouling Tintas anti-incrustantes derivadas de plantas terrestres: uma solução segura para o meio ambiente no controle da bioincrustação Vanessa Ochi Agostini 1,* https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8325-254X Grasiela Lopes Leães Pinho1 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7951-0334 Erik Muxagata2 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4210-5252 Alexandre José Macedo3 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8951-4029 Fabiana Rey Bentos4 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5931-5902 Lucía Boccardi4 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5391-2308 María Jesús Dabezies5 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9909-3427 Ernesto Brugnoli6 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7304-1856 *Autor de contacto: [email protected] 1 Laboratório de Microcontaminantes Orgânicos e Ecotoxicologia Aquática – Programa de Pós-Graduação em Oceanologia – Instituto de Oceanografia – Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil 2 Laboratório de Zooplâncton – Programa de Pós-Graduação em Oceanografia Biológica – Instituto de Oceanografia – Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil 3 Laboratório de Biofilmes e Diversidade Bacteriana – Centro de Biotecnologia – Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil 4 Latitud–Fundación LATU, Montevideo, Uruguay 5 Laboratorio Tecnológico del Uruguay (LATU), Montevideo, Uruguay 6 Oceanografía y Ecología Marina, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República, Montevideo, Uruguay Recepción: 14 Agosto 2020 Aprobación: 15 Enero 2021 Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
    [Show full text]
  • Eucalyptus Study Group Article
    Association of Societies for Growing Australian Plants Eucalyptus Study Group ISSN 1035-4603 Eucalyptus Study Group Newsletter December 2012 No. 57 Study Group Leader Warwick Varley Eucalypt Study Group Website PO Box 456, WOLLONGONG, NSW 2520 http://asgap.org.au/EucSG/index.html Email: [email protected] Membership officer Sue Guymer 13 Conos Court, DONVALE, VICTORIA 3111 Email: [email protected] Contents Do Australia's giant fire-dependent trees belong in the rainforest? By EurekAlert! Giant Eucalypts sent back to the rainforest By Rachel Sullivan Abstract: Dual mycorrhizal associations of jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) in a nurse-pot system The Eucalypt's survival secret By Danny Kingsley Plant Profile; Corymbia gummifera By Tony Popovich Eucalyptus ×trabutii By Warwick Varley SUBSCRIPTION TIME Do Australia's giant fire-dependent trees belong in the rainforest? By EurekAlert! Australia's giant eucalyptus trees are the tallest flowering plants on earth, yet their unique relationship with fire makes them a puzzle for ecologists. Now the first global assessment of these giants, published in New Phytologist, seeks to end a century of debate over the species' classification and may change the way it is managed in future. Gigantic trees are rare. Of the 100,000 global tree species only 50, less than 0.005 per cent, reach over 70 metres in height. While many of the giants live in Pacific North America, Borneo and similar habitats, 13 are eucalypts endemic to Southern and Eastern Australia. The tallest flowering plant in Australia is Eucalyptus regnans, with temperate eastern Victoria and Tasmania being home to the six tallest recorded species of the genus.
    [Show full text]
  • Eucalyptus Rubida Subsp. Rubida
    Plants of South Eastern New South Wales Flower buds on leafy stem. Australian Plant Image Index, photographer Peter Ormay, Canberra, ACT Juvenile leaves. Australian Plant Image Index, photographer Peter Ormay, Canberra, ACT Line drawings. e. juvenile (right) and adult (left) Tree. Photographer Jackie Miles leaves; buds and gumnuts. KR Thiele, Australian National Herbarium, © 2021 Royal Botanic Gardens Board, Melbourne, Vic Common name Candlebark, Ribbon gum, White gum Family Myrtaceae Where found Dry forest, woodland, and grassy areas, usually on cold flats. Western Slopes, Kosciuszko National Park, the mountains to the north, ACT, and tablelands. Occasionally in the ranges. Notes Tree to 40 m tall. Bark smooth throughout or with some patches of rough, greyish bark at the base. Rough bark shortly fibrous, platy, at times shedding irregularly, grey to grey-black. Smooth bark shedding in long ribbons, with horizontal black scars, often powdery. Branchlets glaucous or non-glaucous. Juvenile stems rounded in cross section, glaucous. Juvenile leaves opposite each other for many pairs, stalkless, 2-6 cm long, 25-65 mm wide, glaucous. Adult leaves alternating up the stems, 6.8-17.5 cm long, 8-34 mm wide, glossy or dull, green, grey-green, or glaucous. Flowers white, with 0 petals. Flower clusters 3- or 7- flowered. Mature flower buds 4–9 mm long, caps as long as or shorter than the base. Flowers Spring-Autumn. Gumnuts 4-8 mm in diameter. Gumnuts that have dropped their seed have protruding valves or valves that are not very noticeable. Hybridises with Eucalyptus aggregata and Eucalyptus nortonii. May hybridise with Eucalyptus parvula.
    [Show full text]
  • Honey and Pollen Flora Suitable for Planting in SE
    Honey & pollen flora suitable for planting in south-eastern NSW Agnote DAI-115 Second edition, Revised April 2002 Doug Somerville District Livestock Officer (Apiculture) Goulburn Trees and shrubs are planted for a number of species that have a flowering time different from reasons — as windbreaks, for shade or shelter, and that of the crops. for aesthetic reasons. By carefully selecting the • Avoid selecting winter flowering species for the species you may also produce an environment Tablelands. The temperature is often too low for attractive to native birds and bees. bees to work these sources efficiently. If they It is doubtful whether enough flowering shrubs do, health problems in the bee colony may and trees can be planted on a farm or recreational result. activity area to be a major benefit to commercial • When planting near drains, sewers and beekeeping. But there is good reason to believe buildings, consider whether the plantings may they can benefit small static apiaries. A cause damage in the future. commercial stocking rate for beehives is about one • Select salt tolerant species in areas where this hive per 4–12 ha. This figure varies with the honey is, or may be, a problem. and pollen yielding capacity of the flora. • Windbreaks should be planted three to four Consider these points before selecting species plants wide. Consider an extra one or two rows on the basis of honey and pollen yielding capacity: chosen for honey and pollen production, and to • Multiple plantings of a range of species are increase the aesthetic appeal of the plantings. more desirable than two or three plants of many species.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 3 Section 5A Assessments “Seven Part Tests”
    APPENDIX 3 SECTION 5A ASSESSMENTS “SEVEN PART TESTS” Appendix 3: Seven Part Tests Swamp Sclerophyll Forest Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions is listed as an Endangered Ecological Community under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995). It is not listed under the schedules of the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999). Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions includes and replaces Sydney Coastal Estuary Swamp Forest in the Sydney Basin bioregion Endangered Ecological Community. This community is associated with humic clay loams and sandy loams, on waterlogged or periodically inundated alluvial flats and drainage lines associated with coastal floodplains (NSW Scientific Committee 2011). It occurs typically as open forests to woodlands, although partial clearing may have reduced the canopy to scattered trees or scrub. The understorey may contain areas of fernland and tall reedland or sedgeland which in turn may also form mosaics with other floodplain communities and often fringe wetlands with semi-permanent standing water (NSW Scientific Committee 2011). Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains generally occurs below 20 metres ASL, often on small floodplains or where the larger floodplains adjoin lithic substrates or coastal sand plains (NSW Scientific Committee 2011). The species composition of Swamp Sclerophyll Forest is primarily determined by the frequency and duration of waterlogging and the texture, salinity nutrient and moisture content of the soil. The species composition of the trees varies considerably, but the most widespread and abundant dominant trees include Eucalyptus robusta Swamp Mahogany, Melaleuca quinquenervia and, south from Sydney, Eucalyptus botryoides Bangalay and Eucalyptus longifolia Woollybutt (OEH 2015a).
    [Show full text]
  • Eucalyptus Species for Taranaki
    Eucalyptus Species for Taranaki 14 Introduction conditions. Especially suited to saline winds. This This information sheet follows on from the information species holds its form, mills extremely well at a young sheet, ‘Eucalyptus’ (No.13), which discusses general age, and is largely unaffected by pests and diseases. management issues such as siting, selecting tree stocks, Eucalyptus nitens shining gum E. nitens is more tolerant planting regimes, silviculture, establishment, weed to wet sites and is suited to planting in all damper sites control, planting technique, fertiliser requirements, and that E. fraxinoides won't tolerate, for example, low lying pest and disease control. damper areas along streambanks and on hillsites affected by springs. It is also equally suited to drier As no one species of eucalypt will thrive over the range 'fraxinoides' sites. Generally, E. nitens is suited to of sites in a similar manner to Pinus radiata, selecting the planting in soils that are a bit damper than pine will most suitable species for a particular site is of critical tolerate. Furthermore, the tree has good form, a fast importance. Species selection is just as important, if not growth rate, and is resistant to cold. It has a good more, than issues associated with their subsequent reputation for milling and exceptional peeling management. properties (better than radiata pine), although more trial work on drying properties is required. E. nitens A lack of objective, accessible, practical local knowledge used to be affected by the paropsis tortoise beetle and experience of eucalypt growing in Taranaki makes (Paropsis charybdis), but since that beetle has been it difficult for people seeking advice on correct species controlled, the species is largely free of pest and disease to plant.
    [Show full text]
  • 1158 Nepean Highway, Mornington
    1158 Nepean Highway, Mornington 2nd November 2018 Tree Logic Ref. 009317 Prepared for Kaufland Australia Pty Ltd Prepared by Greg Pollard & Stephen Frank. Tree Logic Pty. Ltd. Email: [email protected], Telephone: 03 9870 7700 Summary Tree Logic was engaged to undertake an arboricultural assessment and prepare a report for a nominated section of the site at 1158, Nepean Highway, Mornington. The primary purpose of the report was to record attributes of the trees including their species, type and condition, to review any planning overlays relating to the trees and to advise on their arboricultural value and suitable tree protection zones to be employed should trees be retained along with site development. One-hundred and five (105) trees were included in the assessment. Five (5) trees were growing on a neighbouring private property. Of the 105 trees, one was of High arboricultural value, 57 were within the Moderate value range, 41 trees were of Low value, and six were rated as ‘None’ (dead and collapsed trees). From an arboricultural perspective it would be preferable to retain higher-rated trees over those of lower value. Tree Protection Zones have been calculated for each of the trees which, if preserved free of development-related impacts, would allow the condition of the trees to be maintained. Allowing additional space for the smaller trees assessed, over and above their current TPZs, would provide greater scope for them to reach their full potential while minimising future conflicts and maintenance. Clause 52.17 of the local planning scheme contains a permit requirement which may control the removal of Trees 1, 14, 15, 16, 50 and 54 (considered benchmark species of EVC 175: Grassy Woodland) however, there does not appear to be any specific planning overlays governing retention of other trees assessed.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Advice for the Elderslie Banksia Scrub Forest in the Sydney
    The Threatened Species Scientific Committee provided their advice to the Minister on 27 September 2019. The Minister approved this Conservation Advice on 26 June 2020 and agreed that a recovery plan is required is required. Conservation Advice1 for the Elderslie Banksia Scrub Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion This document combines the approved conservation advice and listing assessment for the threatened ecological community. It provides a foundation for conservation action and further planning. Elderslie Banksia Scrub Forest with overstorey dominated by bangalay x Sydney blue gum hybrid, Spring Farm. © Matt White Conservation Status The Elderslie Banksia Scrub Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion is listed in the Critically Endangered category of the threatened ecological communities list under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). At the time of this advice, the ecological community corresponds closely with the NSW listed ecological community of the same name and with NSW Plant Community Type (PCT) 774. The ecological community was assessed by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee who recommended that the ecological community merits listing as Critically Endangered and that a recovery plan is required for the ecological community. The Committee’s assessment and recommendations are at Section 5.4 and Appendix D. The Committee’s assessment of the eligibility against each of the listing criteria is: Criterion 1: Critically Endangered Criterion 2: Critically Endangered Criterion 3: Insufficient data Criterion 4: Critically Endangered Criterion 5: Insufficient data Criterion 6: Insufficient data The decline in geographic distribution since 1750 assessed under criterion 1, and the restricted geographic distribution plus the action of threatening processes assessed under criterion 2 would also represent a Critically Endangered status under Criteria A3 and B of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (Bland et al 2017) and under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloading Or Purchasing Online At
    A Field Guide to Native Flora Used by Honeybees in Tasmania 1 © 2009 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 1 74151 947 0 ISSN 1440-6845 A Field Guide to Native Flora Used by Honeybees in Tasmania Publication No. 09/149 Project No. PRJ-002933 The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances. While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication. The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors. The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication. This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. However, wide dissemination is encouraged. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the RIRDC Publications Manager on phone 02 6271 4165 Researcher Contact Details Name: Mark Leech of Brueckner Leech Consulting Email: [email protected] In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form.
    [Show full text]
  • The 1770 Landscape of Botany Bay, the Plants Collected by Banks and Solander and Rehabilitation of Natural Vegetation at Kurnell
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Hochschulschriftenserver - Universität Frankfurt am Main Backdrop to encounter: the 1770 landscape of Botany Bay, the plants collected by Banks and Solander and rehabilitation of natural vegetation at Kurnell Doug Benson1 and Georgina Eldershaw2 1Botanic Gardens Trust, Mrs Macquaries Rd Sydney 2000 AUSTRALIA email [email protected] 2Parks & Wildlife Division, Dept of Environment and Conservation (NSW), PO Box 375 Kurnell NSW 2231 AUSTRALIA email [email protected] Abstract: The first scientific observations on the flora of eastern Australia were made at Botany Bay in April–May 1770. We discuss the landscapes of Botany Bay and particularly of the historic landing place at Kurnell (lat 34˚ 00’ S, long 151˚ 13’ E) (about 16 km south of central Sydney), as described in the journals of Lieutenant James Cook and Joseph Banks on the Endeavour voyage in 1770. We list 132 plant species that were collected at Botany Bay by Banks and Daniel Solander, the first scientific collections of Australian flora. The list is based on a critical assessment of unpublished lists compiled by authors who had access to the collection of the British Museum (now Natural History Museum), together with species from material at National Herbarium of New South Wales that has not been previously available. The list includes Bidens pilosa which has been previously regarded as an introduced species. In 1770 the Europeans set foot on Aboriginal land of the Dharawal people. Since that time the landscape has been altered in response to a succession of different land-uses; farming and grazing, commemorative tree planting, parkland planting, and pleasure ground and tourist visitation.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Growth Area Street Tree Planting.Pdf
    A Guide to Growth Area Street Tree Planting December 2015 CONTENTS Streetscape Development ................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4 Physical and Climatic Conditions .............................................................................................. 5 The Role Of Street Trees ............................................................................................................ 5 Challenges to the Development of Effective Streetscapes ...................................................... 6 Streetscape Design ..................................................................................................................... 7 Layout .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Character ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Council Standards / Procedures .................................................................................................................. 8 Planting Stock ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Planting Preparation & Maintenance ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]