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:
Page 1 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.
Page 2 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
Page 3 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.
Page 4 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
Page 5 of 40
Tree Condition Report - Carlton Gardens South, Post MIFGS 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.
Page 6 of 40
Tree Condition Report - Carlton Gardens South, Post MIFGS 2011
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]
Page 7 of 40
Attachment 3Agenda Item 5.7
Future Melbourne Committee17 May 2011
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
Page 8 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
Attachment 4Agenda Item 5.7
Future Melbourne Committee17 May 2011
Page 9 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
Page 10 of 40
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
Page 11 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
Page 12 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
Page 13 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
Page 14 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
Page 15 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
Page 16 of 40
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
Page 17 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.
Page 18 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
Page 19 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.
Page 20 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
Page 21 of 40
P a g e | 8
Figure 2 Event Map with the location of the 10 sampling sites shown as red stars.
Page 22 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.
Page 23 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
Page 24 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.
Page 25 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
Page 26 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
Page 27 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.
Page 28 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.
Page 29 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.
Page 30 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.
Page 31 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
Page 32 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
Page 33 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
Page 34 of 40
P a g e | 21
C
D
Page 35 of 40
P a g e | 22
E
F
Page 36 of 40
P a g e | 23
G
H
Page 37 of 40
P a g e | 24
I
J
Page 38 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.
Attachment 7Agenda Item 5.7
Future Melbourne Committee17 May 2011
Page 39 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
Page 40 of 40