The Vision for the Urban Forest Strategy

10 months ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

The Vision of the Strategy, is by the year 2023 the City of Nedlands will have:

  • Increased its potential urban canopy by 10% towards the eventual target of 20% by 2028
  • Replaced all deceased public trees (road reserves and public open space)
  • Provided street trees to all residents and ratepayers that have requested them
  • Provided infill street trees to all road rehabilitation projects
  • Been recognised for our quality customer service with respect to trees in the public domain
  • Reported regularly to Council and the community on the progress of the urban forest strategy
  • Delivered on greenway and bushland management plans
  • Progressed with the development of Enviro-scape Master Plans (EMP) for all public parks and reserves.
What are your thoughts on the vision targets for the City?
Relates to Relates to document: Urban Forest Strategy 2018-2023

Consultation has concluded

  • TreeDR 11 months ago
    Firstly I commend the City for developing an UFS and provide the following thoughts on the vision targets that have been set in the draft document:By the year 2023 the City of Nedlands will have:1. Increased its potential urban canopy by 10% towards the eventual target of 20% by 2028. Thoughts: I'm not sure why the word 'potential' has been used. A firmer commitment could be made by removing it. Setting targets is good but only if these targets are realistic and they are based on accurate and consistent data. For example....does the City know what its current canopy cover is and where it has been trending over recent years? If so, what data is the City using and how accurate and reliable is that data. Does the City know where it is losing or gaining canopy? Is it mostly on private land, public land, in parks, streets, commercial etc.? How much canopy will the City lose with the proposed R-Code changes and infill pressure? Datasets based on i-tree or random point sampling data cannot be considered accurate or reliable (see Parmehr et al. 2016 UFUG http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.08.011. Even so...the recently published report by Armati et al. 2017 (https://bit.ly/2fCit7x) using such a method suggests Nedlands canopy cover has declined by more than 10% between 2011-2016. I note the map in FAQ showing change in canopy cover between 2009 and 2016. What was the method used to produce this map? What are the statistics (HA and %) of this change over that 7 year period? How accurate are these statistics given fluctuations in technologies and methods used to carry out such analysis? The most accurate and reliable canopy data for the City of Nedlands between 2012 and 2018 resides with ArborCarbon who are mentioned elsewhere in the strategy and their statistics support the fact that the City has decreased in canopy cover like most other western suburbs councils. If the City is to achieve the proposed 10 and 20% increases in canopy cover it first must have an accurate, reliable and detailed understanding of its urban forest canopy cover. 2. Replaced all deceased public trees (road reserves and public open space). Thoughts: This is a wortwhile initiative but only if the causes of death of these trees is full understood. The premature decline and death of public trees throughout Perth is widespread and caused by many different factors. I have personally undertaken detailed surveys and investigations of such trees over the past decade and have noted many examples whereby councils replace deceased public trees only for them to be replaced by expensive advanced tree stock more than once. Often this has been due to the presence of pathogens such as Phytophthora and Armillaria and compromised root systems of the stock being planted. Does the City have a database of the cause(s) of death of public trees in road reserves and POS? If so what is the accuracy and reliability of the information within the database and are the people conducting such diagnostics experts in the diagnosis of urban tree decline? I would suggest this point should be expanded to include trees will only be replaced where the causes of death are fully understood to avoid wasting rate payers money on expensive advanced tree stock and improving the likelihood of survival and healthy growth of replacement trees. 3. Provided street trees to all residents and ratepayers that have requested them. Thoughts: It is very important that such trees are chosen carefully for the location in which they are to be planted (matching species to site), that they are of high quality, planted correctly and cared for in their first few years. Does the City conduct a site assessment (e.g. soil type and depth, presence of pathogens, irrigated/unirrigated etc.) before selecting species for a site? If not then conducting such assessments and selecting the appropriate species will improve the chances of success of supplied trees. 4. Reported regularly to Council and the community on the progress of the urban forest strategy. Thoughts: The word regularly is very subjective. What does the City consider 'regularly'? If the City is to achieve the targets set over such as short term and given the City's canopy is decreasing then annual progress of its targets would enable the City to determine if it is likely to achieve its target, where the City's canopy is increasing and decreasing enabling it to determine the efficacy of its planting and tree maintenance program, and providing the City with the greatest opportunity to mitigate canopy loss and increase planting to buffer such loss.
  • GrantK 12 months ago
    I need to begin with items from the FAQs:* An urban forest is broadly defined as the collection of green spaces, trees and other vegetation that grows within an urban area, on both public and private land.* What does the strategy cover? The City of Nedlands Urban Forest Strategy only deals with the forest in the public domain. The City will continue to monitor the condition of the trees on private land but does not prescribe to control them within this strategy.Having noted the FAQs, trees in residents' gardens are very important -the major part of the suburbs' tree canopy. While accepting that, at this stage, it is OK not to mandate things about trees in individual gardens, I think it should be part of the "tree policy" to urge for the retention of gardens, and restraints on infill, in areas appropriate to not having garden-destroying infill. Appropriate areas would include those close to primary schools and more than 300m from major public transport routes which, in Nedlands is Stirling Hwy.Maintaining trees in private gardens is good for the whole of Perth in that it reduces urban heat island effects.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Lesley Shaw 11 months ago
      LSI agree, when looking at the 2009 onwards map - the whole of Nedlands is peppered with red dots where trees have been lost, and most have been on private property. Its a positive move for the city to look at a strategy to maintain and increase the forest canopy in the public domain, but infill pressures are enormous and small bushland remnants are far more vulnerable to those pressures - not just Nedlands but Perth as a whole. Shrubs are as important as trees - they provide shelter and food for wildlife - so many shrubs such as bottlebrushes have been cleared from verges and gardens when houses are developed. A tree may be put back but shrubs less likely.