MELBOURNE INTERNATIONAL FLOWER AND GARDEN SHOW – …

F U T U R E M E L B O U R N E ( F I N A N C E A N D G O V E R N A N C E ) C O M M I T T E E R E P O R T

Agenda Item 5.7

MELBOURNE INTERNATIONAL FLOWER AND GARDEN SHOW – PROPOSED FUTURE ARRANGEMENTS

17 May 2011

Presenter: Martin Cutter, Director City Business

Purpose and background

1. Following consideration at Future Melbourne Committee on 12 April 2011, it was resolved:

“to defer consideration of recommendations 12.1 through 12.4 of this report until Council has had an opportunity to consider reports on the impact of the 2011 Melbourne International Flower and Garden Show on the World Heritage listed Carlton Gardens and further information on how the licence fee was set.”

2. Council approved the recommendation of “Flower and Garden Show Limited” applying for funding through the Events Melbourne Triennial grant program at the Council Meeting on 19 April 2011.

Key issues

3. The previous licence agreement for the 2009-2011 period was established at $100,000 (exclusive of GST) and adjusted for CPI in years 2 and 3.

4. The recommendation in the report provides for a fee that is consistent with the previous year’s licence but with set incremental rises, which allows the event organiser to plan and budget more effectively.

5. There is no established fee structure for the hire of the World Heritage listed Carlton Gardens and therefore no true comparison exists. As previously advised, an expansive review is currently underway to benchmark the Council’s event fee structures applicable to hiring public open space. Parks of this nature will be considered as part of the review.

6. All relevant condition reports on the impact of the event on the Gardens are attached including CityWide Tree Condition Report, Park Ranger Compliance Report, Event Reinstatement Summary, Heritage Tree Report, Soil Compaction Report, and a Memo from Manager Parks Services.

7. Overall, all reports indicate that the Melbourne International Flower and Garden Show event has had minimal impact on the condition of the trees and soil compaction and any issues identified were of a short term nature that were able to be rectified through corrective action immediately or through turf replacement.

Recommendation from management

8. That the Future Melbourne Committee recommend Council:

8.1. subject to all necessary approvals from the Minister responsible for the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 first being obtained and the incremental rises referred to in the following sub-paragraph, grant to Flower and Garden Show Limited (‘Company’) a licence to use the Carlton Gardens for the running of the Melbourne International Flower and Garden Show for a period of three years with an option to extend for a further three years, otherwise on terms and conditions generally consistent with the previous licence;

8.2. set the licence fee at Year 1 $110,000, Year 2 $114,000 and Year 3 $118,000;

8.3. consider the Company’s request to:

of 40

Attachments: 1. Supporting Attachment 2. CityWide Tree Condition Report 3. Park Ranger Compliance Report 4. Event Reinstatement Summary 5. Heritage Tree Report 6. Soil Compaction Report 7. Memo to M Cutter 2.

8.3.1. increase the lock down period of Carlton Gardens South from 14 to 18 days in order to comply with recommendations from WorkSafe; and

8.3.2. increase the entry fee from the existing $20 to $30 per person (over a period of time); and

8.4. if in agreement with the Company’s request, instruct the Chief Executive Officer to seek the approval from the State Government for the necessary changes to the Melbourne Parks and Gardens (Joint Trustee Reserves) Regulations 1994.

of 40

3

SUPPORTING ATTACHMENT

Legal

1. The purposes for which the Carlton Gardens may be used include public recreation (pursuant to the Order in Council of 1 February 1864) and horticultural exhibitions (pursuant to regulation 19 of the Regulations). The Carlton Gardens are managed by Council as the Committee of Management. As the Committee of Management, Council is able to license the Carlton Gardens in accordance with the provisions of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 and the Regulations. The Regulations prescribe the period the gardens can be closed off to the public for the Melbourne International Flower and Garden Show (MIFGS) and the entry fee payable by the public.

2. The Crown Land (Reserves) Amendment (Carlton Gardens) Act 2008 amended the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, allowing the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the responsible Minister, to declare an event in the Carlton Gardens to be a ‘special event’. If a special event is declared, in respect to the area occupied by the event and for the period of the event:

2.1. the Secretary of the Department of Sustainability and Environment or the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Trust assume the role of management; and

2.2. Council’s Local Laws and the Regulations are suspended.

3. Due to the World Heritage status of the Carlton Gardens, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) has application ('EPBC Act'). Section 12 of the EPBC Act provides:

(1) A person must not take an action that:

(a) has or will have a significant impact on the world heritage values of a declared World Heritage property; or

(b) is likely to have a significant impact on the world heritage values of a declared

World Heritage property.

4. The EPBC Act defines “action” to include

(a) a project; and (b) a development; and (c) an undertaking; and (d) an activity or series of activities; and (e) an alteration of any of the things mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).

5. The proposed licence is for the purpose of continuing permission for an activity that had been carried out prior to the application of the EPBC Act.

Finance

6. The total budget expenditure for the 2010-11 financial year was $119,150 which was treated as a separate budget item through Council’s operating budget and not as part of any overall grant program. This funding includes:

6.1. cash sponsorship ($56,300);

Attachment 1Agenda Item 5.7

Future Melbourne Committee17 May 2011

of 40

4

6.2. soil compaction testing ($6,180); and

6.3. contribution to traffic management, resident notification, advertising and promotion, awards and trophies (totalling $56,670).

7. Fees are not charged for the hire of the park, however revenue is paid by the Company to Council in the form of a licence fee of $104,000. A refundable bond of $30,000 and an annual Public Projects Contribution to Parks Services of $30,450 are also paid by the event organiser.

8. Under the draft 2011-12 budget the separate budget line item for MIFGS has been removed and approximately $115,000 has been added to the Triennial grant funding budget.

Conflict of interest

9. No member of Council staff, or other person engaged under a contract, involved in advising on or preparing this report has declared a direct or indirect interest in relation to the matter of the report.

Stakeholder consultation

10. It is anticipated that the terms of reference of the Event Advisory Group will be reviewed.

Relation to Council policy

11. MIFGS is regarded as one of the premier flower and garden shows nationally and internationally, assisting the enhancement of Melbourne’s reputation as a vibrant city by supporting and promoting local events.

of 40

Tree Condition Report - Carlton Gardens South, Post MIFGS 2011

ABN- 94-066-960-085

Tree Condition Report - Carlton Gardens South

28th April 2011 Prepared for: Francis Khoo Parks Services Manager City of Melbourne Prepared by: Dan Thomas - Dip Hort/Arb Operations Manager Citywide Service Solutions

Brief: Provide a report to park services that documents an assessment of the tree population in Carlton Gardens South in relation to the possible impact on tree health of the Melbourne International Flower and Garden Show, (MIFGS), which ran from 30th March to the 3rd of April 2011 This report is based primarily on a visual assessment of tree heath carried out on the 27th of April 2011 although has been further augmented by consideration of the following: 1. Historical knowledge of tree condition and climatic influences over the past 5 years 2. Soil moisture readings taken through the summer period 3. Climatic information sourced from the Bureau of Meteorology Discussion: In previous years, tree health in the gardens has been impacted by a number of external factors, the most critical being soil moisture availability. The MIFGS event has required non operation of the irrigation systems for a two week period during set up and the show itself. The potential risk to tree health during this period has been mitigated by frequent monitoring of trees and the availability of resources such as large capacity water tankers for flooding work and deep watering processes. Historical irrigation regimes have created a tree population with surface orientated root morphologies that are heavily reliant on above ground irrigation. This unusual morphology makes the trees far more susceptible to water stress and canopy decline when soil moisture is limited.

CityWide Service Solutions Pty Ltd ACN 066960 085

22 Henderson Street North Melbourne 3051

Telephone: (03) 9329 0169 Facsimile: (03) 9329 5730

of 40

katbro

Text Box

Attachment 2 Agenda Item 5.7 Future Melbourne Committee 17 May 2011


During the summers of 2007/2008 and 2008/2009, Citywide was engaged to provide a fulltime climate response resource to assist the City of Melbourne in the identification and treatment of water stressed trees. This resource was focussed on the main Gardens and Boulevards with a brief to closely monitor tree health in Carlton Gardens South, in particular, during the MIFGS event. Where canopy stress was identified, short term mitigation activities included the installation of water reservoirs to individual trees, tanker flooding and deep watering. Long term recommendations were made including dripper line augmentation, installation of organic mulches and aeration programmes to elevate compaction. This climate response resource was again in place during the summer of 2001/2011 although in a reporting capacity only, as canopy stress due to low soil moisture levels was greatly reduced across the municipality due to high rainfall and less intense heat events. Report: A condition audit of all trees was carried out as part of cyclic routine tree maintenance in January 2011. 134 of the 340 trees required maintenance ranging from deadwood removal to footpath and light clearances. One tree was identified as requiring removal and a tree removal request was sent to council. The majority of trees were noted as being in good condition although possum browsing was noted and possum guarding work was programmed. A pre MIFGS audit was also carried out in late March to assess tree safety. This was a visual assessment only, no actions or work requests were generated. Broadly speaking, current tree health in the gardens is very good. This can be measured and observed by leaf colour, canopy density and retention of leaf, stem elongation and leaf turgor. This is in contrast to canopy health noted in the same period during the 2008/2009 during the prolonged hot and dry summer period where water stress was a significant issue, despite various interventions. Water stress was in evidence right through autumn until subsequent leaf fall. The current health condition can be attributed to the following: Cultural Treatments. There have been a number of activities undertaken in the gardens that have helped improve growing conditions for the tree population. They include deep watering to rehydrate drying soils, aeration and de-compaction of compressed soils and the application of organic mulches. When combined these activities improve tolerances to external influences such as pedestrian foot traffic and variances in soil moisture. Soil Moisture. Soil moisture was measured in Carlton Gardens in the summer of 2010/2011 with an average reading of 63.7 over the period. In the same period of 2009/2010, the average reading was 55. (This is an average of all sites in Carlton Gardens). The lowest measure in 2010/2011 was 50.9. The lowest in 2009/2010 was 44.4. Although not conclusive, this is an indication of available soil moisture across the entire site.

of 40


Rainfall. Statistics available on the BOM website for Melbourne show that the monthly rainfall totals as per the table below:

2009/10 Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total

71 22 103 60 25 62 84 427

2010/11 Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

53 144 115 58 89 126 30 615

It is clear that rainfall has increased from 2009/10 to 2010/11, more importantly January and February both were comparatively very wet months. This allowed the soil moisture levels to be recharged negating canopy stress from reduced moisture availability due to the non operation of the irrigation systems. Summary. Based on a visual assessment of the trees and their current condition, combined with an understanding of the historical issues in the gardens, I have assessed the tree population as being in good health and in my opinion, the MIFGS event has had little impact on tree condition. Regards,

Dan Thomas. Dip Hort/Arb. Operations Manger. Open Space Division Telephone: (03) 9329 0169 Email: [email protected]

of 40

mailto:[email protected]



Park Rangers Compliance Report - MIFGS 2011

Non Compliance

No.

Date Nature of Problem Location / Description

Immediate Action Compliance Grading of Breach For Future Action

1 21/03/2011 Large Concrete weight on Garden bed/plants

1b Spoke to Kat (organiser) to ask for it to be removed

yes b Further emphasise the importance of following requirements and the consequences to stall

holders2 21/03/2011 Heavy building equipment

on tree roots (planks, pallets, wheelbarrows &

bricks)

69 Asked to move yes c Further emphasise the importance of following

requirements to stall holders

3 21/03/2011 Large Landscaping stones and power tools on tree

roots

63 Asked to move yes c Further emphasise the importance of following

requirements to stall holders

4 21/03/2011 Large square divet in grass in front of site (trip hazard,

maybe from a weight?)

62 (a) Better Homes &

Gardens site

spoke to Landscape team member, asked to fill with sand

yes c Educate stall Holder re: liability and safety.

5 28/03/2011 3 dogs off lead (belonging to Stall holders)

along main landscape

sites

Requested dogs be leashed yes c Dogs are not allowed on site, next year any stall holder that brings dogs

onsite will have to return them home. Educate stall

holder Re; leashing infringements / fine re-

offenders6 30/03/2011 Heavy wear - 1m strip in

front of stallA74 Spoke to Greg - requested

mattingyes b All stalls to be required to

cover this "problem" 1meter area in future years.

7 30/03/2011 Potential heavy pedestrian wear in front of food stalls (Potato & corn vendors)

Spoke to Greg - requested matting

yes c All stalls to be required to cover this "problem" 1

meter area in future years.

8 01/04/2011 Complaint re - Stall Holders harassing possums with

brooms/chasing them

57b Attended and spoke to satll holders

yes c Educate stall holder re: Wildlife Act and subsequent

penalties.

9 02/04/2011 Exposed wires hanging from a tree

spoke to stall holder, had them remove unused cords

yes b Educate stall Holder re: liability and safety.

10 03/04/2011 Heavy wear - goat trail (from pedestrians noted between Parterre beds

none - as was only noticed on last day of event

n/a b Organisers to provide small hoop fencing to prevent

pedestrian using beds as a shortcut. Also to adjust

location of toilet blocks to avoid people cutting across garden beds to access the

11 03/04/2011 Equipment and plants dumped on top of Parterre

bed

A63 Daniel Piper Landscape group - asked to remove

left sitting on grass, not on top

of plants

b Further emphasise the importance of following requirements and the consequences to stall

holders. 12 05/04/2011 1x dog of lead (belonging to

stall holder)amongst the

major landscape

sites

Requested dog be leashed. yes c Dogs are not allowed on site, next year any stall holder that brings dogs

onsite will have to return them home. Educate stall

holder Re; leashing infringements / fine re-

offenders

1

of 40

MEMORANDUM Date Tuesday, 3 May 2011 To Francis Khoo Copy From Sam Russell

Subject Carlton Gardens Reinstatement following the 2011 MIFGS Event Prior to event commencing the turf at Carlton Gardens was in the best condition for many years. This was largely due to milder weather and above average rainfall and permission from water authorities to irrigate lawns in Carlton Gardens with above ground irrigation. Turf was still growing strongly during bump in, which in some places resulted in longer grass during the show. Longer grass holds up better under pedestrian traffic. At the post MIFGS site inspection, attended by representatives from IMG, CityWide Turfcare and the City of Melbourne it was agreed that IMG would be responsible for replacement of 3,667m2 of turf. (In 2010, about 3,200 square metres of turf was used) The turf was kikuyu oversown with rye grass as used in previous years. Aeration using Verti Drain machine on back of tractor occurred on the Saturday 9 April (all lawn areas except where there is drip irrigation). Fertilisation using 1.2 tonnes of Simplot Turf Supreme fertiliser occurred on Saturday 16 April. Seeding was undertaken using the seed variety "Essence" which has also been used to oversow the sod. New sod is being irrigated as needed. The turfing and seeding works have been successful and further minor levelling and oversowing will be undertaken as required as part normal maintenance activities. A further inspection will be undertaken in September to review any areas that have had a poor result. Sam Russell Telephone 9658 8442 Facsimile 9658 9620 E-mail [email protected] Customer Reference

CoM Reference 6458910



of 40

HERITAGE TREE PROTECTION REPORT CARLTON GARDENS MELBOURNE MELBOURNE INTERNATIONAL FLOWER AND GARDEN SHOW MARCH 30 – APRIL 3 2011

Introduction The aim of the Heritage Tree Inspector is to monitor the bump in, bump out, and conduct of all organisations associated with the annual Melbourne International Flower and Garden Show at the Carlton Gardens World Heritage Site, and monitor, assess and report on any construction methodologies that could have a detrimental effect on the trees and green infrastructure. Observations Onsite inspections were carried out on the following days: Bump In Monday 21st March Tuesday 22nd March Wednesday 23rd March Thursday 24th March Friday 25th March Saturday 26th March Sunday 27th March Monday 28th March Tuesday 29th March Bump Out Sunday 3rd April (PM) Monday 4th April Tuesday 5th April Wednesday 6th April Thursday 7th April

of 40

katbro

Text Box


It was noted during all inspections a high level of understanding and compliance with Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) and turf compaction requirements. Nearly all landscape exhibits were compliant with all requirements, and all staff movements and activities appeared to demonstrate this level of understanding and commitment to limiting any detrimental impact to the gardens. Construction techniques of landscape exhibits were highly sophisticated and designed around no surface penetration. Hessian was noted on all sites covering exposed grass within exhibits, limiting any compaction or long term adverse effects to grass. It was also noted that stockpiled materials such as gravel and pavers were stored on hessian or pallets to reduce impact on surrounding areas.

Stockpiles around trees - all raised

on pallets and timbers

Hessian used on all sites

Stockpiles on pallets and

construction techniques

Cranes used to limit traffic on grass

of 40

Heavy duty plastic boarding was noted at all sites where vehicles required movement over grass areas. These boards help disperse the vehicle mass to reduce compaction and eliminate wheel rutting. Several trailers were noted parked on this type of boarding with no impact to turf noted once removed. All car and truck parking on site noted complied with TPZ and compaction requirements.

Only one instance of staking within the TPZ was noted as part of a landscape exhibit. The landscaper involved was informed and the issue was rectified within an hour. The holes were examined at removal and noted to be no deeper than 150mm with no obvious significant root damage. Holes were back filled with organic mix soil.

Pallets and hessian for all materials

Great example of no dig construction

techniques to ensure limited impact

3 star pickets within 4.5m of a mature

Melia azederach

Bracing with no staking

of 40

Inspections on Monday 21st March of all Marquee installations discovered 5 occurrences of minor breaching of TPZ’s as follows: Rathdowne St – Northern end, Araucaria sp. 3.6m Rathdowne St – Southern end, Populus sp. 3.9m Rathdowne St – Southern end, Grevillea robusta 3.6m Victoria St – Western end, Ulmus sp. 4.1m Nicholson St – Southern end, Populus sp. 4.2m It is worth noting the number of breaches in 2011 was half the number recorded in 2010. This demonstrates a commitment by the organisers to continuously improve to bump in which should be commended. Incidents were reported to IMG representative who reported these immediately to marquee contractor. Inspections on Wednesday 23rd March confirmed all breaches were rectified. The vast majority of marquees were installed correctly, with these 5 occurrences accounting for a exceptionally small number given most marquees have upwards of 4 securing points. Marquees within the TPZ were mostly secured with barrelled water or concrete weights, with some points close to trunks left un-staked or weighted, and tied back to other points. Concrete weights were noted to be situated on timber plinth within TPZ. Many weights were noted outside TPZ to avoid underground services.

Water barrel weight for

securing marquee without

staking

Typical configuration of water

and concrete weights for

securing marquees near trees

of 40

Bump Out Inspections were undertaken at all areas during and after the bump out. In general, all turf areas covered during the event were noted to have some yellowing but nothing that would contribute to any long term issues. Some sites in fact showed absolutely no signs of stress or wear at all.

While turf damage was recorded at one site at the conclusion of the event, there was evidence of root activity which should ensure no long term impact. The area is expected to recover well under normal horticultural management and the events turf replacement program. Importantly there was no damage seen to the trees within the park area.

Care taken with materials on pallets

during bump out

Example of construction to limit

compaction – noted during bump

out

Evidence of care to turf areas during

bump out

Lack of any turf stress throughout

main landscape avenue

Minor turf damage – no long term

effects

of 40

Conclusion The commitment by the show organising committee and landscapers to adhere to TPZ’s and turf compaction reduction was constantly noted and should be commended. Construction methods inspected for landscape exhibits at the Melbourne International Flower and Garden Show would be having no long term impact on the heritage trees, general trees or turf areas within Carlton Gardens. Short term yellowing of grass should be expected at the conclusion of the event each year. A reduction by half in Marquee breaches of TPZ’s is encouraging. The five recorded breaches were minor in frequency and impact still being a minimum of 3.6m from trunk. No root damage was noted.

Steve Day Heritage Tree Inspector for MIFGS President Tree and Shrub Growers Victoria Horticultural and Landscape Services Coordinator ParksWide

of 40

SOIL COMPACTION ASSESSMENT

OF

CARLTON GARDENS

PRIOR TO AND AFTER

THE MELBOURNE INTERNATIONAL

FLOWER AND GARDEN SHOW

for

IMG World

Commissioned by:

Greg Hooton

Vice President

IMG Event

by

Robert H.M. van de Graaff PhD (Soil Sci.)

&

Glenn Marriott (BSc. Ag.)

of

van de Graaff and Associates Pty Ltd

14 Linlithgow Street

Mitcham 3132

April 2011

of 40

katbro

Text Box


P a g e | 3

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 4

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5

2.0 Method .................................................................................................................................................... 5

3.0 Bulk Density ........................................................................................................................................... 9

4.0 Effects of Compaction on Soil Properties ............................................................................................... 9

4.1 Reduction of Pore Space ..................................................................................................................... 9

4.2 Shifts in Pore Size Distribution ........................................................................................................... 9

4.3 Reduction of Infiltration ................................................................................................................... 10

4.4 Reduction in Aeration ....................................................................................................................... 10

4.5 Soil Temperatures ............................................................................................................................. 10

5.0 Measurement of Bulk Density and Interpretative Standards ................................................................ 10

5.1 Soil Bulk Density .............................................................................................................................. 10

6.0 Fieldwork .............................................................................................................................................. 11

7.0 Summary of Results .............................................................................................................................. 15

Appendix 1 – GPS Co-ordinates of each sampling location GPS Co-ordinates (Datum 66) ..................... 16

Appendix 2 – Field notes ............................................................................................................................ 17

Appendix 3 – Laboratory Data – Bulk Density & Soil Moisture ............................................................... 18

Appendix 4 – Field Data – Penetrometer Depth Measurements ................................................................. 19

Appendix 5 – Photos taken during Pre and Post Event sampling ............................................................... 20

of 40

P a g e | 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

van de Graaff and Associates undertook a field assessment of the Carlton Gardens to assess the

current level of soil compaction and the potential impact on vegetation caused by holding the

Melbourne International Flower and Garden Show (MIFGS) from the Wednesday 30th March -

Sunday 3rd April 2011.

Fieldwork was carried out by Mr Glenn Marriott, Dr Robert Edis and Dr Jacinta Bakker on

March the 28th

and April the 11th

, respectively to cover the pre-event and post-event conditions.

Dr Robert van de Graaff was unable to join the field party as he was recovering from an

operation.

The parameters measured were:

• Bulk density

• Soil moisture levels

• Penetrometer resistance; and

• Depth of penetrometer entry into the soil before recording a resistance greater than 2000 kPa

It is concluded that the MIFGS has not caused damage by compaction to the soil in 2011, despite

large areas of turf being relayed due the dying off of turf that has been covered by hard plastic

tiles. There has been only minor damage to turf caused by superficial scuffing by human foot

traffic. In areas which were covered with hard plastic tiles the turf has died off or yellowed so

that lack of sunlight is the cause, not increased foot traffic. Sites I and E may be exceptions as

there much of the turf has been scuffed away. There has been no overall detectable change in the

bulk density of the soils in Carlton Gardens as a result of the MIFGS. The couch grass is very

hardy and would most likely recover quickly once exposed to sunlight and normal park use.

With the exception of 9.4 mm of rain on the 25th

of March no significant rainfall occurred in the

two weeks leading up to the event which ensured that the soil would have been reasonably dry

and would possess sufficient load bearing capacity so that soil compaction did not occur. At this

time of the year there is usually a trend in which the soil dries out and becomes progressively

more able to withstand the trafficking. It also was that way this year as an analysis of rainfall

and evaporation has shown. However, there was a major storm event on the 10th

of April, the

day before the Post Event soil sampling took place, when 17.4 mm of rain fell in the area and

wetted the soils thoroughly.

of 40

P a g e | 5

1.0 Introduction

Van de Graaff & Associates have been commissioned by Greg Hooton of IMG World to assess

whether the Melbourne International Flower and Garden Show (MIFGS) held in Carlton Gardens

has had an undesirable effect on soil compaction. These investigations have been commissioned

in response to the ongoing concerns raised by local residents that intensive pedestrian and

vehicular traffic taking place during the event may be having a detrimental effect on the soil and

vegetation through compaction.

To assess whether soil compaction has occurred during the MIFGS, soil density sampling and

other in-field measurements were carried out on the 28th

of March 2011 to characterise the Pre-

Event soil conditions and on the 11th

of April 2011 to characterise the Post-Event Conditions.

The Bump In for the event was nearly complete during the Pre-Event sampling. The Bump Out

was completed prior to the Post-Event sampling.

Monitoring of soil compaction in Carlton Gardens has been undertaken since 2003. The

monitoring points used in 2011 are similar to those used in 2010 but not identical because those

points were covered by tents and hard plastic tiles

2.0 Method

The investigations both Pre- and Post-Event involved the collection of soil samples for soil bulk

density analysis in a laboratory, in situ soil penetrometer testing, and an assessment of other site

conditions such as turf condition and soil moisture status. Monitoring occurred at 10 locations

across the turf areas of Carlton Gardens, labelled A to J. Every site has been marked on an aerial

photograph and also allocated GPS coordinates (GDA 84) to ensure the same position was

sampled Pre- and Post-Event as much as possible, but sites A, C, E, H and I were shifted into

areas which looked trafficked (A & E) or where grass had died under plastic tiles (C, H & I).

This will also useful for soil monitoring in the future. Three undisturbed soil samples were

collected per site for bulk density analysis at each of the 10 sites during each sampling event. In

addition, 15 penetrometer depth measurements at 2000 kPa were taken at each site.

Bulk density of the oven-dried undisturbed soil sample serves as a reference datum for the

density of a soil, that is for the proportion of pore volume to volume occupied by the solid

particles in relation to the total volume occupied by the entire soil, but, as all soils except very

sandy soils can increase in volume when moist or wet, the soil moisture content at the time of

sampling has also been determined.

A hand-held penetrometer was used to record the resistance to penetration by the tip of this

instrument as it is being pushed down into the soil. Moist or wet soils can be deformed more

easily by external pressure so that a moist soil offers less resistance to the penetrometer as it is

pushed down into the soil.

The penetrometer resistance was not measured beyond a maximum value (2000 kPa). This value

is used at it corresponds with the maximum pressure a plant root is able to exert on the soil. Dry

soils that are not dense will still possess a high penetrometer resistance, while the dryness of the

soil will limit root extension. Thus the depth at which the penetrometer recorded resistances of

more than 2000 kPa, at which point the penetrometer was not pushed deeper, coincides with the

of 40

P a g e | 6

depth of moist topsoil over dry subsoil. Therefore, when the subsoils are dry because of a

drought, the penetrometer data are of little use in identifying dense layers that restrict the growth

of roots within the whole depth of the root zone.

It is important that the reader realises that roots will not enter soil that is hard due to dryness,

rather than due to compactness. Moisture is needed to allow soil particles to “slide” past one

another to make way for roots.

An aerial photograph of Carlton Gardens in Figure 1 and event map in Figure 2 have been

included to demonstrate the layout of gardens and the specific soil sampling locations. The GPS

co-ordinates of each location are included in Appendix 1.

of 40

P a g e | 7

Figure 1 Map of Carlton Gardens with the location of the 10 sampling sites shown as red stars. Aerial photo taken Jan

2010

of 40

P a g e | 8

Figure 2 Event Map with the location of the 10 sampling sites shown as red stars.

of 40

P a g e | 9

3.0 Bulk Density

Soil bulk density is defined as the weight of a unit volume of dry soil, including the solid and the

pore volumes. Thus, compaction of a soil directly influences its bulk density by reducing the

pore volume.

Bulk density governs several soil characteristics such as soil strength, infiltration rate and macro

pore space. All of these soil characteristics have horticultural impacts.

Total pore space in a soil is inversely proportional to bulk density by the following equation:

Where 2.65 g/cm3 stands for the particle density, i.e. the density of the solid phase.

As bulk density increases total pore space in the soil decreases. This is the result of soil

compaction. The actual effect is that the open soil structural aggregates of the soil are crushed

and the mineral or primary particles are pressed together and rearranged to form a denser matrix.

This will reduce water and air infiltration rate as well as the availability of water, all of which

will impact on plant growth.

4.0 Effects of Compaction on Soil Properties

4.1 Reduction of Pore Space

As pore space is reduced by compaction, the soil structure begins to change. Average pore

diameter is reduced, as is the total pore space volume. This increases the resistance of the soil to

root penetration, as the majority of root channels weave their way through soil pore space as this

is the path of least resistance. Depending upon the degree of original pore space, compaction

may result in a decrease in water holding capacity and oxygenation in the profile.

4.2 Shifts in Pore Size Distribution

Compaction changes the distribution of pores within the profile. A naturally well aggregated soil

is one where the pore size varies from large air-filled macro pores to small micro pores that

usually contain water. This allows for rapid movement of air and water throughout the natural

profile, providing adequate aeration and transport of water and nutrients to the root zone.

A soil that has undergone compaction suffers damage to this transport system through what is

called “loss of structure”. However, limited compaction can actually increase the waterholding

capacity of a soil profile, by increasing the number of the smaller water holding micro pores as

the larger air holding macro pores are crushed.

of 40

P a g e | 10

4.3 Reduction of Infiltration

When topsoil compaction results in the loss or reduction of macro pore space, the profile often

suffers from excessive drying. This is due to the fact that a greater proportion of rain may run

off and downward infiltration of water is decreased.

4.4 Reduction in Aeration

Gaseous diffusion within a soil profile can largely only occur in the macro pore fraction of total

pore space. Thus, when the macro pore volume is reduced, and the diffusion pathways are made

narrower as a result of compaction. A decrease in soil oxygenation is the result, along with an

accompanying increase in carbon dioxide levels in the soil air.

4.5 Soil Temperatures

The reduction of pore space as a result of compaction means that the soil particles are put into

greater contact with each other. This contact means that the profile as a whole becomes a better

conductor of heat.

5.0 Measurement of Bulk Density and Interpretative Standards

5.1 Soil Bulk Density

Bulk density is measured by forcing a metal sampling cylinder of known volume into the soil by

hammering it until its upper rim is even with the soil surface and then carefully removing the

cylinder and contents with a small garden trowel with the assistance of a knife for cutting the

surrounding soil. The soil in the cylinder is removed into a resealable plastic bag to prevent loss

of soil moisture. In the field, care was taken to remove the upper 20-40 mm of turf so as to

sample the soil itself and not the root mat. Because variations in soil properties over small

distances are extremely common, three samples were collected within a radius of 1 m at each

site.

In the laboratory the sampling cylinder plus sample is weighed, then oven-dried and reweighed.

As the diameter and height of the cylindrical sample is known, the volume of sampled soil is

known. The mass of the cylinder is subtracted to determine the mass of the soil sample.

After calculating the moisture content and subtracting it from the moist mass, the mass of the dry

sample is divided by its volume to yield the bulk density. The sampling cylinders are

approximately 5 cm tall and have a diameter of approximately 5 cm.

Guidelines for interpreting dry bulk densities of soils are suggested by Handreck and Black

(2002)1 , which are reproduced in Table 1. The appropriate column for comparison with the

surface soil materials in the Carlton Gardens would be the middle column “LOAMS” and in

some areas the left column “SANDY SOILS”.

1 Handreck, Kevin, and Black, Neil, (2002). Growing Media for Ornamental Plants and Turf. 3rd Ed. UNSW Press Ltd,

UNSW Sydney, NSW. 2052

of 40

P a g e | 11

Table 1. General relationship between bulk density, soil texture and plant growth

conditions.

Duffy and McClurkin (1974)2 found that soil bulk density was the most important factor in

determining the success or failure of the planting of pine trees.

Table 2. Relationship between Bulk Density and Loblolly Pine Planting Failure.

It needs to be remembered that plant species vary in their response to high bulk density.

Generally, trees cope better with compaction than shallow rooted annuals or perennials.

6.0 Fieldwork

The first round of sampling to characterise the Pre-Event conditions were carried out on March

28, 2011 in the Carlton Gardens.

There was a high degree of variation in turf quality across the site, with turf quality varying from

good to poor. The field notes for both Pre- and Post-Event site assessments are included in

Appendix 2. Much of this variation in turf quality prior to the event is likely to be explained by

uneven watering during the normal management of the turf.

Preceding rainfall and evaporation data were obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology (Table 3)

that show the weather during all of February and up till the 5th

of March had been mostly dry,

with 9.4 mm rainfall occurring on the 25th

of March. This is rather typical of summer weather

patterns where evaporation is high and storm events generate most of the precipitation.

2 Duffy, P.D., and McClurkin D.C., (1974). Difficult eroded planting sites in north Mississippi evaluated

by discriminant analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 38, p.676-678.

of 40

P a g e | 12

However, 17.6 mm of rain fell the day before the Post Event sampling took place and this rain

thoroughly wetted the soil.

Table 3 presents the weather data from the Melbourne Regional Office of the Bureau of

Meteorology and demonstrates that this year there was a drying trend in the two weeks prior to

the show.

Table 3. Rainfall3 and evaporation

4 before and after the MIGFS. Cells highlighted

grey represent the pre and post event sampling dates and the green cells are

the days on which the MIFGS was held.

Note: Evapo-transpiration by plants is often estimated by multiplying Pan eavporation by a

factor of 0.7.

3 Melbourne City, corner of Latrobe & Victoria Streets - Melbourne Regional Office (Station # 086071) 4 Melbourne Airport – Tullamarine – (Station #086282)

Day Date Rainfall

(mm)

Evaporation

(mm)

Evapo-

transpiration

(mm)

Water

loss

(mm)

Cumulative

water loss

(mm)

Wed 16/03/2011 0 3.8 2.7 2.7 2.7

Thu 17/03/2011 0 5.6 3.9 3.9 6.6

Fri 18/03/2011 0 3.4 2.4 2.4 9.0

Sat 19/03/2011 0 3.6 2.5 2.5 11.5

Sun 20/03/2011 2 2.8 2.0 0.0 11.4

Mon 21/03/2011 0.2 5.2 3.6 3.4 14.9

Tue 22/03/2011 0 2.2 1.5 1.5 16.4

Wed 23/03/2011 0 2.6 1.8 1.8 18.2

Thu 24/03/2011 0 3.6 2.5 2.5 20.8

Fri 25/03/2011 9.4 2.6 1.8 -7.6 13.2

Sat 26/03/2011 0.2 3.2 2.2 2.0 15.2

Sun 27/03/2011 0 2.4 1.7 1.7 16.9

Mon 28/03/2011 0 1.8 1.3 1.3 18.2

Tue 29/03/2011 0 4 2.8 2.8 21.0

Wed 30/03/2011 0 5.4 3.8 3.8 24.7

Thu 31/03/2011 0 5 3.5 3.5 28.2

Fri 1/04/2011 0 2.4 1.7 1.7 29.9

Sat 2/04/2011 0 2.2 1.5 1.5 31.5

Sun 3/04/2011 0 4 2.8 2.8 34.3

Mon 4/04/2011 2 4.4 3.1 1.1 35.3

Tue 5/04/2011 0.2 4.6 3.2 3.0 38.4

Wed 6/04/2011 0 7 4.9 4.9 43.3

Thu 7/04/2011 0 5.2 3.6 3.6 46.9

Fri 8/04/2011 0 4 2.8 2.8 49.7

Sat 9/04/2011 0 2.6 1.8 1.8 51.5

Sun 10/04/2011 17.6 1.6 1.1 -16.5 35.0

Mon 11/04/2011 1.4 4 2.8 1.4 36.4

of 40

P a g e | 13

The penetrometer depth readings Post-Event doubled from Pre-Event depths, but in reality the

average increase in depth from 5.7 to 9.0 cm is not great (Table 4). This increase in penetration

depth can be attributed to the higher soil moisture content during post-event testing as

gravimetric moisture content increased from 26 to 29 %, which is probably due to the heavy rain

that fell the day before Post-Event testing.

Bulk density is the most important measure of compaction and the mean data from each of the 10

sites is shown in Table 4. The data demonstrates that the overall the soil bulk density is relatively

low (uncompacted) and the data suggests that soil bulk density increased very slightly after the

MIFGS in the Carlton Gardens with the overall mean bulk density rising from 1.18 to 1.21

g/cm3. This change in bulk density is small and therefore deemed insignificant. The standard

error for this method of soil bulk density measurement is around 0.05 g/cm3. This indicates that

the mean change in soil bulk density of 0.03 g/cm3 is within the range of standard error for the

measurement itself, indicating that no significant change in soil bulk density has actually

occurred.

The Pre and Post-Event bulk density of 1.18 and 1.21 g/cm3 are within the range 100%

successful Loblolly Pine Planting (Table 2)5 and also within the satisfactory range for a sandy

soil (Table 1)6.

Field notes made to describe the conditions on the 28th

of March and the 11th

of April 2011 have

been included in Appendix 2 for reference. As Pre-Event sampling occurred after much of the

bump in had occurred, most of the sampling points were shifted slightly from the 2010 locations,

because most of the exact sampling points had been covered by interconnecting plastic tiles

within tents, or raised decking. Pre-Event sampling points were moved to the side or rear of the

tents. At the commencement of the Post-Event sampling it was clear that these areas which had

been covered with decking or hard plastic tiles were areas with turf which had gone yellow. Pre-

Event sampling points C, E, H and I, were moved slightly from the Post-Event location to areas

with yellowing turf from being covered. At other sites such as site A it was clear where turf had

been scuffed by a high amount of foot traffic, where pedestrians had exited the Lindemans Stand

which was covered during the event with hard plastic tiles (see photo of pre-event sampling in

Appendix 5). Site A was therefore moved less than 2 metres into this area of high traffic, not

covered by the hard plastic tiles.

Turf was in the process of being re-laid during the Post-Event sampling, but had not yet occurred

at any of the sampling points.

5 Duffy, P.D., and McClurkin D.C., (1974). Difficult eroded planting sites in north Mississippi evaluated

by discriminant analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 38, p.676-678. 6 Handreck, Kevin, and Black, Neil, (2002). Growing Media for Ornamental Plants and Turf. 3rd Ed. UNSW Press Ltd,

UNSW Sydney, NSW. 2052

of 40

P a g e | 14

Table 4. Mean soil moisture, penetrometer depth and bulk density data before and after the Flower and Garden Show.

Pre-Event – 28 March 2011

Post-Event – 11 April 2011

Site

Gravimetric water

% Penetrometer depths

Bulk

density

Gravimetric water

% Penetrometer depths

Bulk

density

Mean Mean Median Mean

Mean Mean Median Mean

A 25.92 8.6 9.0 1.22

32.98 7.8 8.0 1.23

B 13.25 0.5 0.0 1.26

15.43 2.2 2.5 1.31

C 25.67 5.9 6.0 1.14

32.96 16.1 13.0 1.22

D 46.60 10.2 10.0 1.08

60.07 11.3 12.0 0.87

E 39.72 7.3 7.0 1.00

33.09 18.1 13.0 1.38

F 28.22 5.3 5.0 1.16

27.83 7.2 7.0 1.22

G 8.53 5.8 5.0 1.29

14.61 9.7 10.0 1.26

H 14.54 2.3 2.0 1.25

25.81 5.7 6.0 1.12

I 43.03 10.8 10.0 1.11

33.50 9.7 10.0 1.25

J 17.15 0.4 0.0 1.29

17.85 2.4 2.0 1.24

Overall

Mean 26.26 5.7 5.4 1.18

29.41 9.0 8.4 1.21

St error 0.05

St error 0.04

Note: The data presented in Table 4 presents the mean data from each site. The complete set of results for bulk density and soil

moisture are included in Appendix 3, while the penetrometer depth measurements are in Appendix 4. The GPS co-ordinates for each

site are in Appendix 1 and field notes are in Appendix 2.Photos taken during Pre and Post Event sampling are in Appendix 5.

of 40

P a g e | 15

7.0 Summary of Results

Soil measurements taken before and after the Melbourne International Flower and Garden Show

are tabulated in Table 4, with soil moisture levels, penetrometer depth at 2000 KPa and soil bulk

density compared. Table 3 contains the preceding daily rainfall and daily evaporation data

which shows the MIGFS was preceded by two weeks of a drying climatic trend.

In spite of the lack of significant rain, the soils have become moister in the period between 28th

March and 11th

April, and this is reflected in a greater depth of soil with less penetrometer

resistance than 2000 Kpa. It is highly probable that the heavy rain on the 10th

of April caused the

soils to become appreciably wetter.

Soil bulk densities across the Carlton Gardens are relatively low and considered normal for the

soil type. There has been an insignificant level of change in soil bulk density before and after the

MIFGS. The mean soil bulk density data implies that the soil bulk density decreased from 1.18

to 1.21 g/cm3 over 10 sites and between the two sampling events, but the difference is actually

insignificant given the standard deviation of 0.05 g/cm3. Despite superficial damage to turf

requiring relaying, there is no evidence of soil compaction.

So long as the soil moisture status remains approximately under 30%, the soils within the Carlton

Gardens will continue to have high penetrometer resistance (minimal insertion depths) in spite of

having rather low bulk densities. Bulk densities of 1.18 – 1.21 g/cm3 are in themselves are not

limiting root growth.

The data show that the holding of the Melbourne International Flower and Garden Show in

March has not damaged the soil, but under certain trafficking intensities and covering the turf

itself will be superficially damaged. In dry times the turf will be worn down by walking and

scuffing, and in wet times it could be trampled and pugged. By being deprived of sunlight a

patch of grass may have yellowed but this should become green quite readily after removal of the

item that shaded it. Perhaps consideration should be given to the use plastic tiles that permit the

passage of some sunlight to the grass below. The turf is easily replaced with minimal impact on

the underlying soil.

of 40

P a g e | 16

Appendix 1 – GPS Co-ordinates of each sampling location GPS Co-ordinates (Datum 66)

28 March 2011 11 April 2011

Site S E S E

A 37:48.491 144:58.156 37:48.491 144:58.156

B 37:48.482 144:58.111 37:48.482 144:58.111

C 37:48.440 144:58.093 37:48.440 144:58.093

D 37:48.436 144:58.139 37:48.436 144:58.139

E 37:48.462 144:58.171 37:48.462 144:58.171

F 37:48.469 144:58.235 37:48.469 144:58.235

G 37:48.422 144:58.307 37:48.422 144:58.307

H 37:48.455 144:58.299 37:48.455 144:58.299

I 37:48.497 144:58.285 37:48.497 144:58.285

J 37:48.514 144:58.220 37:48.514 144:58.220

Note: Whilst the GPS coordinates are identical, the actual Pre Event and Post Event sampling

sites can easily be a off by 4 - 5 metres. In fact for the Post Event sampling about half the sites

were moved about 2 metres to include apparent high traffic areas and damaged turf.

of 40

P a g e | 17

Appendix 2 – Field notes Site Site Notes Pre Event Site Notes Post Event

A

Near Lindeman's open garden. Turf lush, 100% cover soil moist Turf yellowing slightly, different place to pick up high traffic

zone, which was not protected by hard plastic tiles. Soil has

been aerated

BBetween tree & lamp post in front of stall next to path. Soil

with lots of stone soil firm

Turf very spare, some imported wood chips near tree

C

Opposite side of path from lake (west, from north edge of

lake) next to tree, behind tent. Moist 100% grass cover roots,

worms. Sandy loam

Under tent thick yellow grass mat soil very moist lots of

worms

DNear (west of) irrigation man hole, 100% cover green couch,

soil wet, clay loam

Very moist soil, lot of grass worms & rock

E

Sandy clay, well structured, worms present, 100% grass cover,

couch, green & lush 7m north of Norfolk Pine - near centre of

lawn

Very moist , dead patches of grass, worms (not many). Site

moved to be below what was a raised deck. Soil aerated and

turf likely to be replaced

F2m from path, halfway b/w 2 park benches. Gravel at the

bottom of samples, sandy clay loam

Same place, Turf relatively OK. Soil moist occasional rocks

below turf.

G

Very dry and sandy, sandy loam, top coat of clay loam,

unconsolidated 100% grass cover, with 20% yellow patches

80% green. Site 7 moved, was under deck in an exit. 7m

diagonal from path corner 3m from man hole

Same place. Turf in good condition, soil moist

H

Sandy clay loam, 100% grass cover, mainly green 10% yellow.

3m from path in line with big elm tree, 4m from pine tree

Similar place, under tent. Turf yellow but still alive

I

Beautiful soil healthy clay loam sand, 100% grass cover, green

with 5% yellow. 4m NE from man hole

Site moved to be under tent, so slightly different location to

last time, soil bare and moist. Grass dead or gone (turf to be

replaced in this area

J

90% grass coverage not re-laid turf, 60%Green, 30% yellow.

Nice soil, but dry, moved site to north side of path 4m from

path, directly in the middle of 2 elms. Clay loam but very dry

Same place. Turf OK, negligible change

Summary: Comparing the Pre Event and Post Event conditions, it appears that the damage done

to the turf is mainly one of deprivation of sunlight and yellowing and in the extreme case the

grass has died, but can be readily replaced. The areas with new turf re-laid in 2010 could still be

identified in the park as that turf was couch grass and in better condition than the turf that was

not replaced.

of 40

P a g e | 18

Appendix 3 – Laboratory Data – Bulk Density & Soil Moisture

v(ring) 226.01 cm^3 v(ring) 226.01 cm^3

Sampling

pointtin

tin + wet

sub

sample

wet

sample

tin + dry

subsample

dry

sample

mass of

waterθ %

bulk

densitygeomean

mean

water θ %tin

tin + wet

sub

sample

wet

sample

tin + dry

subsample

dry

sample

mass of

waterθ %

bulk

densitygeomean

mean

water θ %

Units g g g g g g % (g/cm 3̂ (g/cm 3̂) % g g g g g g % (g/cm 3̂) (g/cm 3̂) %

Aa 8.20 375.58 367.38 296.76 288.56 78.82 27.31 1.28 8.20 376.18 367.98 290.83 282.63 85.35 30.20 1.25

Ab 8.24 371.66 363.42 288.17 279.93 83.49 29.83 1.24 1.22 25.92 8.22 381.28 373.06 281.85 273.63 99.43 36.34 1.21 1.23 32.98

Ac 8.24 321.76 313.52 268.14 259.90 53.62 20.63 1.15 8.22 374.33 366.11 284.75 276.53 89.58 32.39 1.22

Ba 8.28 332.53 324.25 293.98 285.70 38.55 13.49 1.26 8.25 349.53 341.28 307.49 299.24 42.04 14.05 1.32

Bb 8.32 312.99 304.67 274.70 266.38 38.29 14.37 1.18 1.26 13.25 8.31 333.54 325.23 286.96 278.65 46.58 16.72 1.23 1.31 15.43

Bc 8.23 350.35 342.12 314.02 305.79 36.33 11.88 1.35 8.22 371.24 363.02 322.48 314.26 48.76 15.52 1.39

Ca 8.28 315.36 307.08 259.34 251.06 56.02 22.31 1.11 8.27 369.08 360.81 280.14 271.87 88.94 32.71 1.20

Cb 8.20 305.59 297.39 251.66 243.46 53.93 22.15 1.08 1.14 25.67 8.19 373.39 365.20 279.53 271.34 93.86 34.59 1.20 1.22 32.96

Cc 8.23 378.59 370.36 288.26 280.03 90.33 32.26 1.24 8.21 378.67 370.46 289.74 281.53 88.93 31.59 1.25

Da 8.27 371.72 363.45 254.40 246.13 117.32 47.67 1.09 8.25 308.85 300.60 194.95 186.70 113.90 61.01 0.83

Db 8.23 377.18 368.95 271.27 263.04 105.91 40.26 1.16 1.08 46.60 8.20 326.28 318.08 211.36 203.16 114.92 56.57 0.90 0.87 60.07

Dc 8.12 353.04 344.92 235.23 227.11 117.81 51.87 1.00 8.11 333.70 325.59 208.29 200.18 125.41 62.65 0.89

Ea 8.21 345.55 337.34 244.00 235.79 101.55 43.07 1.04 8.20 404.34 396.14 302.44 294.24 101.90 34.63 1.30

Eb 8.22 325.35 317.13 239.74 231.52 85.61 36.98 1.02 1.00 39.72 8.20 436.94 428.74 325.92 317.72 111.02 34.94 1.41 1.38 33.09

Ec 8.26 301.26 293.00 218.87 210.61 82.39 39.12 0.93 8.25 430.72 422.47 333.96 325.71 96.76 29.71 1.44

Fa 8.22 337.29 329.07 262.42 254.20 74.87 29.45 1.12 8.21 387.09 378.88 306.12 297.91 80.97 27.18 1.32

Fb 8.26 373.59 365.33 300.99 292.73 72.60 24.80 1.30 1.16 28.22 8.24 331.08 322.84 261.05 252.81 70.03 27.70 1.12 1.22 27.83

Fc 8.33 326.41 318.08 252.27 243.94 74.14 30.39 1.08 8.31 369.65 361.34 289.29 280.98 80.36 28.60 1.24

Ga 8.24 321.18 312.94 298.75 290.51 22.43 7.72 1.29 8.25 328.04 319.79 279.08 270.83 48.96 18.08 1.20

Gb 8.25 324.30 316.05 294.87 286.62 29.43 10.27 1.27 1.29 8.53 8.26 356.64 348.38 313.55 305.29 43.09 14.11 1.35 1.26 14.61

Gc 8.29 329.30 321.01 306.62 298.33 22.68 7.60 1.32 8.28 320.41 312.13 287.86 279.58 32.55 11.64 1.24

Ha 8.26 337.26 329.00 300.01 291.75 37.25 12.77 1.29 8.26 311.66 303.40 256.71 248.45 54.95 22.12 1.10

Hb 8.29 328.22 319.93 289.96 281.67 38.26 13.58 1.25 1.25 14.54 8.27 328.72 320.45 262.56 254.29 66.16 26.02 1.13 1.12 25.81

Hc 8.22 330.43 322.21 282.98 274.76 47.45 17.27 1.22 8.21 338.92 330.71 264.00 255.79 74.92 29.29 1.13

Ia 8.28 354.16 345.88 248.57 240.29 105.59 43.94 1.06 8.27 372.03 363.76 284.59 276.32 87.44 31.64 1.22

Ib 8.22 379.39 371.17 272.76 264.54 106.63 40.31 1.17 1.11 43.03 8.20 391.82 383.62 294.31 286.11 97.51 34.08 1.27 1.25 33.50

Ic 8.30 372.45 364.15 259.72 251.42 112.73 44.84 1.11 8.28 392.56 384.28 293.44 285.16 99.12 34.76 1.26

Ja 8.22 350.88 342.66 302.52 294.30 48.36 16.43 1.30 8.24 344.22 335.98 292.59 284.35 51.63 18.16 1.26

Jb 8.25 349.88 341.63 299.60 291.35 50.28 17.26 1.29 1.29 17.15 8.26 328.55 320.29 272.76 264.50 55.79 21.09 1.17 1.25 17.85

Jc 8.29 345.47 337.18 294.60 286.31 50.87 17.77 1.27 8.29 349.89 341.60 307.14 298.85 42.75 14.30 1.32

mean 26.25 1.18 mean 29.41 1.21

Pre-Event Post-Event

of 40

P a g e | 19

Appendix 4 – Field Data – Penetrometer Depth Measurements

Note: all penetrometer penetration depth measurements are in centimetres at a maximum

resistance of 2000 kPa. Values which are bold and italic font indicate where a stone was struck.

Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average Median

A 10 8 10 9 5 12 10 8 6 9 11 9 9 5 8 8.6 9.0

B 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0.5 0.0

C 3 6 8 11 7 6 7 4 6 6 5 6 3 7 3 5.9 6.0

D 7 12 8 8 12 6 9 14 9 9 10 11 14 14 10 10.2 10.0

E 5 10 6 8 6 8 11 8 4 12 7 7 4 6 7 7.3 7.0

F 6 6 5 3 7 6 7 5 4 7 5 4 6 5 3 5.3 5.0

G 5 7 5 3 5 8 3 9 4 6 11 5 2 10 4 5.8 5.0

H 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 2 2 5 2 2 3 2.3 2.0

I 9 11 11 11 11 18 7 10 11 10 8 10 10 18 7 10.8 10.0

J 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.0

5.7 5.4

Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Average Median

A 3 5 11 8 2 4 4 8 12 12 2 15 15 10 6 7.8 8.0

B 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 2.2 2.5

C 12 20 12 11 7 13 16 25 13 30 12 15 30 18 7 16.1 13.0

D 13 12 14 7 6 7 12 13 11 7 11 11 14 18 14 11.3 12.0

E 6 7 23 10 13 8 8 12 28 11 13 18 46 25 44 18.1 13.0

F 7 5 6 7 4 8 14 12 5 7 6 6 6 8 7 7.2 7.0

G 5 11 10 7 12 10 12 8 10 10 10 8 10 9 13 9.7 10.0

H 5 6 3 4 4 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 3 5.7 6.0

I 12 10 7 8 13 19 14 10 4 2 12 10 10 8 6 9.7 10.0

J 1 2 1 2 3 3 5 2 2 5 2 2 2 3 3 2.4 2.0

9.0 8.4

average

Pre-Event Pentrometer Readings

Post-Event Penetrometer Readings

average

of 40

P a g e | 20

Appendix 5 – Photos taken during Pre and Post Event sampling

Site Pre-event Post-Event

A

B No photo taken

of 40

P a g e | 21

C

D

of 40

P a g e | 22

E

F

of 40

P a g e | 23

G

H

of 40

P a g e | 24

I

J

of 40

1

MEMORANDUM Date Friday, 29 April 2011 To Martin Cutter Copy Rob Adams From Francis Khoo

Subject ASSESSMENT OF CARLTON GARDENS SOUTH POST MIFGS 2011 File 6451995 As requested, this report provides an assessment of the condition of Carlton Gardens South after the MIFGS event from 30 March to 3 April 2011. Parks Services commissioned a report on the condition of the trees. The report was completed on 27 April 2011 by Dan Thomas, a qualified arborist who is the Operations Manager, Tree Services for CityWide Service Solutions. CityWide has been the City’s service provider for tree services for the last 16 years. The report which is attached, concludes that the MIFGS event has had little impact on tree condition. The Park Rangers carry out monitoring activities during the period of the MIFGS event. A report is attached that lists the problems that they observed. The identified issues were assessed as being of medium and minor grading and did not cause any significant damage. The breaches were rectified by the relevant parties at that time. Parks Services also carries out an assessment of the garden’s condition before and after MIFGS. A report prepared by the Parks Contract Manager is attached. The event organiser pays for the cost of the reinstatement of the turf and any other damage. Aeration and fertilising of the lawns were carried out, together with some seeding over areas that had some light damage. A total of about 3,700 square metres of instant turf was laid over lawn areas that had more significant damage to ensure that the gardens are returned to a high quality of presentation within as short a time as possible. In regard to the report from Ms Margaret O’Brien regarding non-compliance issues, I am only able to respond on those matters relating to the gardens as follows:

Clause 1.16 – the weight loading has generally been thought to apply to raised structures that carry pedestrian loading such as platforms or walkways. These would require certification by engineers. There are no trees adjacent to the sites in the photos.

Clause 1.17 – the footprint of all marquees and a “walkway” leading to the marquee are generally covered with turf protection. However, areas that are mulched are not covered with turf protection. All damaged areas are subsequently aerated and re-grassed.

Clause 1.22 – generally, the corners are protected during bump-in and bump-out with barriers. However, they are generally removed for the duration of the show and some damage may occur due to traffic.



of 40

2

Short cuts through turf areas – the location of the toilet was unfortunate. Significant wear of the turf was noticed on the last day of the event. If required in future, the location should be moved slightly to prevent pedestrians from walking through the gap and Pro-floor used if considered necessary.

Items placed adjacent to trees – from time to time, exhibitors may place small items adjacent to trees. In the example shown, they are relatively light and not expected to cause damage.

Use of Pro-floor – please see Clause 1.17 above.

Francis Khoo Manager Parks Services

of 40

MELBOURNE INTERNATIONAL FLOWER AND GARDEN SHOW – …

Documents

Transcript of MELBOURNE INTERNATIONAL FLOWER AND GARDEN SHOW – …