Attachment 2 Arboriculture
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Attachment 2 Arboriculture FURTHER INFORMATION RESPONSE – ARBORICULTURAL MATTERS The following table is a response to the items raised in the Arboricultural Technical Review Report prepared by Sean McBride of Treesafe dated 12 January 2015. Item No. Information Requested Response 1 Area of designation wider than surveyed. Treesafe to confirm scope of trees No further feedback/confirmation received from Treesafe relating to "scope to be surveyed (Protected, significant trees (i.e. eg STEM), other??). of trees to be surveyed". Adopting an assessment method such as STEM Acknowledge there are differences between initial site survey and current has been proven to be effective in the past with similar transport designation plans. Consider using STEM assessment for the identification designation projects in terms of identifying and subsequently mitigating the of “significant trees”. Point threshold to be agreed. loss of "significant trees". It is noted that in the case of the Mill Road corridor, that there are no trees within the corridor that are specifically scheduled or significant. Tree removal will be mitigated by the designation conditions which require preparation of an Urban Design and Landscape DWP (condition 28) which requires the following: a) The proposed landscape design theme to be adopted for the entire length of the corridor; b) Plans that identify any vegetation to be retained, areas of landscape mitigation and ecological enhancement planting. This shall include a schedule of the species to be planted including botanical name, average plant size at time of planting, planting density and average mature height of each; In addition, condition 35 requires that Auckland Transport minimises the amount of native vegetation that is cleared. Special care is required to be undertaken to minimise the loss of old growth native forest and trees at 38, 134 and 146 Mill Road to that which is absolutely necessary for the proposed works. Auckland Transport is also required to clearly demarcate the extent of indigenous vegetation clearance prior to its removal, under the supervision of the nominated project botanist. 2 Appreciate limitations of surveying from public land - way forward to assess There could be the possibility of joint site visits down the track. However trees on private land not visible from roadside. Treesafe to discuss with landowner approval for site access has been and continues to be very Auckland Council. Possible joint visit/conditions later down the track? difficult to obtain (i.e 146 Mill Road). 3 Add a wider range of plant species in table (Protected trees in predominant Vegetation inventories can be updated following further site assessments column). Clarification on protected species and numbers in tree schedule. and the provision of detailed design drawings which is likely to be at the outline plan stage as anticipated by the NoR conditions. 1 Item No. Information Requested Response 4 Confirm area of trees to be removed (tables indicates 24900m² to be As per item 3. removed). Also in conclusions more accurately indicate protected trees to be removed (combination # count and m2). 5 Arborlab report 9.5 - Change in available water to trees? Cut and fill, A detailed assessment of these effects can be undertaken at the detailed change to water table, draw, etc. Cross sectional drawings reviewed in design stage when finalised engineering drawings have been developed. relation to significant trees (including those just outside designation – This is required by condition 35 and Council will be able to request draw?)? Para 2. Section 13.2 (None)? changes through the Outline Plan process. 13.2 should read "9.3". 6 Arborlab report 9.6 - Section 13.3 (None)? 13.3 should read "9.4". 7 Arborlab report 10.7 - Indicate trees on table suitable candidates for Candidates for relocation will need to be evaluated in detail closer to the relocation. time of construction since they are living organisms subject to change. An assessment process will need to be agreed upon to evaluate such trees and at an appropriate time in relation to the project timelines. The assessment process will need to consider the overall condition of the tree, its current dimensions and the anticipated tolerance to the relocation process. Where it is not viable to relocate such candidates, for example due to the length of time the trees(s) will be in temporary locations, then a condition to the effect that the trees will be replaced with appropriate mitigation. This will be determined as part of both the Ecological Management and Restoration DWP and the Urban Design and Landscape DPW which requires the identification of vegetation to be retained (see condition 28). 8 Arborlab report 10.8 - Area for re-vege mitigation planting? Some areas A collaborative approach to re-vegetation can be adopted at the detailed shown on Urban Design/Concept and Landscape plans design stage whereby the arborist and ecologist can provide input for the landscape design team in terms of preparation of the Urban Design and Landscape DWP as required by proposed designation condition 28. 9 Arborlab report 11.1 - Review of latest Urban Design and Landscape Study As per item 8. (Latest)? Are concept plans accurate representation of what can be achieved. Possibly refer to Manukau Tree Policy 2005 (or latest edition) for street plants species? 10 Arborlab report 11.5 - Clarification of setback for new tree planting near The locations of batters etc. can be taken into account during the batters? Smaller plants closer possible? preparation of the finalised landscape plans which will need to be developed at the detailed design stage. Arboricultural input can be 2 Item No. Information Requested Response provided to the landscape design team at this stage. These will be guided by the Urban Design DWP and Ecological DWP. 11 Arborlab report 11.6 - Net coverage loss against what is to be replaced? A further assessment of the tree stock will be required pending the Treesafe to confirm type of trees to be picked up provision of detailed design drawings such that the tree coverage at the (Protected/Significant/Other?) time of construction is accurately assessed. Condition 35.6 requires the clear demarcation of indigenous vegetation clearance prior to its removal. 12 Arborlab report 11.8 - Tree pit design in relation to 2m wide berm. Detailed design drawings are required to accurately assess the feasibility of Achievable? What about planting in less than 2m berm? using, for example, underground soil vaults for new tree planting. In most instance, underground soil vaults can be configured to provide adequate soil volumes in the majority of situations. 13 Arborlab report 11.9 - Tree Policy 2005 for species direction as well? The species included in 11.9 have been suggested for "Council's consideration". A review of the tree policy document can be undertaken to select species suitable for each location within the project limits in conjunction with input from the ecologist and landscape design team and included in the Landscape Plan required by proposed condition 28. 14 Arborlab report 12.1 - More accurate representation of tree number As per item 3. removals; including protected? 15 Mitigating methods for potential edging effects (outlines possible effect) Awaiting response from Treesafe. Also, detailed design drawings are Treesafe to check ecology report in relation to appropriate required in order to accurately assess the potential edge effects and to recommendations already included with the NoR. propose suitable mitigating methods. Designation conditions 28 and 35 address mitigation of tree removal and associated ecological effects. 16 Off road Cycle lanes/Bridal path (new?) to assess - on existing road/private No response. land? Treesafe to check with AC if included in project. 17 Bridge construction - Rain shadows for trees to remain (mitigation for those The ecological assessment notes that for the bridges at 146 Mill Road and affected); adverse effects (additional light during construction?)? over the Watercare land it is likely that immediately beneath the bridge abutments there will be rain-shadow effects, where precipitation will be unable to drift underneath the bridge and water the underlying soil. However, these effects diminish with increasing bridge elevation, and given the steep nature of the stream gullies together with the bridge elevations it is anticipated that rain-shadow effects are unlikely to be manifest in approximately 80% of both bridges footprint. The project ecologist has 3 Item No. Information Requested Response advised that the shade-tolerant understorey will be temporarily exposed to additional sunlight during construction of the bridges. This is unlikely to significantly affect the understory in terms of dieback .The understorey can be monitored and if dieback occurs, replacement plantings can be undertaken pending detailed design. This would be captured by the Urban Design and Landscape DWP (condition 28) that includes providing for ongoing maintenance and establishment for landscaping. 18 Treesafe will also talk other AC Consultants for contamination and land No response. stability (Geotech) issues near significant trees. 4 To: Aecom Prepared Andrew Benson by Reviewed Karl Burgisser by Attention: Craig Hind Date 14th April 2015 Ref 23265 Subject - Addendum vegetation survey - Redoubt Road / Mil Road NoR 1. Introduction 1.1. Arborlab Consultancy Services Ltd has been engaged by Aecom to undertake a vegetation survey within the extent of a proposed temporary designation boundary on Redoubt Road and Mill Road. 1.2. The findings and recommendations contained herein are based on the visual ground based assessment undertaken by Mr Andrew Benson and Mr Joe Allen of Arborlab during two site visits carried out on Thursday and Friday the 9th and 10th April 2015 as well as the following documents and communications. Aecom drawing set 60317081-SHT-30-0000-CD-0101 to 0122 [Rev E] Geospatial information received from Aecom Meeting at Aecom building on Friday 27th March with Mr Craig Hind (Aecom), Mr Karl Burgisser, Mr Andrew Benson (Arborlab), Mr Sean McBride (Treesafe), Mr Peter Reaburn (Campbell Brown) and Ms Vrinda Moghe (Auckland Council) 1.3.