Tree Board reviews draft community forest management plan outline, flags need for canopy data and funding

The Lake Forest Park Tree Board reviewed a draft outline for a Community Forest Management Plan and focused the conversation on two immediate needs: an updated tree‑canopy assessment and clarity on available funding to pay for consultant work or implementation.

Why it matters: A current canopy assessment using recent LIDAR or imagery would provide the baseline data the plan needs for informed choices about public‑space planting, priority planting zones, and metrics to track progress. Board members and staff said they prefer a short consultant contract to produce GIS layers and canopy metrics rather than drafting a major plan without recent data.

What staff told the board Planning staff circulated a draft outline pulled together from model plans and local policy documents, including references to the 2024 comprehensive plan and the Climate Policy Advisory Team’s work. Staff said the draft emphasizes climate resilience, data‑driven monitoring, invasive species, stewardship and implementation accountability.

Staff also said a King County‑supported grant opportunity that might have funded baseline data and outreach is currently on pause; staff reported an approximate tree fund balance of about $78,000 and said the city could consider that as seed funding for assessment or consultant work. Staff noted that King County recently narrowed its free‑canopy‑assessment program to cities that already had baseline data, so outside funding may be needed if the county program is unavailable.

Board priorities discussed - Canopy assessment: Board members agreed the number‑one priority is updated canopy data (LIDAR/GIS) showing public vs. private canopy, planting opportunities and impervious area interactions. Staff recommended requesting proposals for a focused canopy analysis as a first consultant task rather than commissioning a full plan up front. - Scope and roles: Several members suggested the plan should address both public‑land management (parks, rights‑of‑way) and private‑land influence (incentives, outreach), with clearly identified implementation roles for parks, planning, stewardship partners and community volunteers. - Funding strategy: The board asked staff to check the tree fund balance, to ask the planning director about one‑time city match funding, and to gather cost estimates from nearby cities (Kenmore, Bothell) that had recently contracted for similar work.

Quotations from the meeting Staff summarized the immediate need: “Getting updated information on our canopy — what’s the canopy like on public versus private right now — is getting GIS layers, which we don’t have from the previous assessments,” the presenter said.

Next steps Staff committed to: (1) report back with an up‑to‑date tree fund balance; (2) check the status of potential external grants and the Department of Commerce/King County timelines; and (3) gather sample consultant costs and scope from nearby municipalities so the board can decide how much of the work it wants to manage in‑house versus contracting out.

Ending Board members asked that the community forest plan return to the next meeting with funding options and sample scopes so the group can decide whether to proceed with a standalone canopy assessment before drafting the full plan.