By Kathleen Mpulubusi
The Dunluce Treestand, located on 121 Street and 158 Avenue, is one of the largest remaining patches of natural forest located within the developed areas of Edmonton. It is 5.7 hectares (14.5 acres) in area. It is one of many natural areas dotted throughout the city. These areas are vital islands of nature in an increasingly more dense, populated and sprawling urban environment. The Dunluce Treestand is essentially undisturbed aspen upland forest with a typical shrub understory and ground cover. You can be completely immersed in the forest hearing only natural sounds. One could imagine that this is what this area looked like before urban development.
The Dunluce community is currently undergoing a major neighbourhood renewal. The plan also calls for the removal of up to 200 mature trees throughout the community to put in new bike lanes and other infrastructure. As part of the renewal plan the City wants to “develop” the treestand with impervious concrete trails, picnic areas and brighter lighting, making it more of a public park than a natural area. Trees would also be removed from the Treestand, particularly along the periphery, to allow for wider pathways. Currently there is a red shale path bisecting the Treestand with informal walking trails through the area and lighting along the red shale path.
Concerned residents (including myself) are alarmed that the City’s plans for the Treestand would destroy the natural character of the area, making it more of a public park for recreation, not protection. Brighter lights would add to light pollution and might cause more stress for the forest residents. Wider, concrete paved trails through the forest would invite visitors to speed through and under-appreciate the forest’s natural beauty. The trails could also increase disturbance of the forest community by adding more human presence.
Concerns have been raised both with the City planners and with Erin Rutherford (City Councillor) about the plan for the Treestand and whether or not it is permitted within a Protected Natural Area. According to information provided by Erin, the Dunluce Treestand is currently not a Protected Natural Area but does fall within the Public Service Zone (PSN) which includes parks, community services, special events and protected natural areas. The Dunluce Treestand was established in 1976 and predates the specific Protected Natural Areas designation. When the City updated the zoning by-laws in 2023 the Treestand did get zoned within the PSN but not specifically as a Protected Natural Area. This means that the City planners can do more within the Treestand than what would be permitted as a Protected Natural Area with a specific management plan.
Erin has indicated that she is willing to try and have the Dunluce Treestand formally designated as a Protected Natural Area. Dunluce residents would like the City to move now on having the Treestand designated instead of waiting for the Dunluce Neighbourhood Renewal to be done. Our concern is that by the time the Treestand is “developed”, it may cease to be the beloved, forest oasis it has been for 48 years. Dunluce neighbourhood has one of the lowest density tree canopies in the city. The Treestand is a big part of the tree canopy within the community. Having Protected Natural Areas within communities is becoming more important than ever for people’s physical and mental health.
The saga of the Dunluce Treestand does raise questions about the status of other Natural Areas throughout the city. One cannot assume that the protection is truly there. As by-laws and City Councils change, things can quietly fall through the cracks, and only surface when the trees are in danger of being chopped down.
Editor’s Note:
Dunluce Treestand (NW 643) is actually listed on the City’s website as a Natural Area Park. Its blurb says: These natural parks are different from conventional, manicured parks. They are managed in a way that puts nature first, by protecting native wildlife habitat and natural processes. These parks also let us learn about nature right in our own backyard. However, looking at other Natural Area Parks, my impression is that the City’s expectation is for them to be somewhere between a regular park, albeit much smaller, for public recreation, and a designated Natural Area or Environmentally Significant Natural Area where the emphasis is (or should be) on environmental protection. Natural Area Parks make use of existing remnant natural vegetation but access by local residents is emphasized.
Dunluce Treestand was problematic soon after its status was declared, because there was fear in the neighborhood that it would harbour drug use and other bad behaviour – hence the lighted walkway. City Parks staff member John Helder, responsible for liaising with communities regarding natural areas, fought hard during the 1990s to keep the treestand natural and calm community concerns.
Obviously, I agree with Kathleen that the area should not be further disturbed at the risk of completely losing its naturalness. I think a valid argument could be made using the City’s own definition above. But maybe a more cogent argument could involve stressing the importance of not losing trees in pursuance of the City’s policy of increasing its urban tree canopy. It makes no sense to be simultaneously planting saplings as per the policy and cutting down mature trees to open up areas.
For the record, I have just submitted a very critical article to Iris, the Alberta Native Plant Council’s magazine, decrying the City’s neglect of Natural Area Park Winterburn Woods (NW 302) in the west end, for which, lacking management, I do not see much of a future. I think there is a real possibility that it will eventually be bulldozed and replaced with an artificial park. But don’t get me started on the topic of the City and its so-called Natural Areas!