Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry Canopy Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Poulsbo Tree Board reviews Western Washington canopy assessment, readies DNR grant deliverables and policy recommendations
Summary
Poulsbo Tree Board reviewed a final urban tree canopy assessment prepared by Western Washington University, discussed outreach and I-Tree analyses, and asked staff to package findings into the city's report for a Department of Natural Resources grant closeout due at month-end.
Poulsbo—s Tree Board on Monday reviewed Western Washington University's Poulsbo Urban Tree Canopy Assessment and discussed next steps to finalize DNR grant deliverables, pressing staff to prepare a city report and outreach materials before the grant deadline.
Board members said the assessment shows the largest canopy losses came from retail and residential development, particularly in northwest parts of the city, and noted census-tract canopy estimates in the report ranged from about 57.6% to 26.3%. Kevin, who said he will write the city's final report incorporating Tree Board input, told the group he will align the assessment with the city's Urban Forestry Standards and Specifications Manual and the master public tree plan.
Board members said the university report provides maps, canopy-change timelines and recommendations but needs local context and specific edits before it is submitted to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Maxwell proposed creating two outreach products from the analysis: an "ecosystem services" flyer showing lost canopy and a separate flyer estimating the monetary value of trees using I-Tree software. Maxwell said those products would help translate technical findings for the public and city council.
Kevin confirmed he will be the primary author of the city's deliverable and asked the board to supply recommended edits and the board's priorities this week so invoices and grant paperwork can be processed before the end-of-month deadline. "I guess I'd be the main author, if you will, but, with... the city's final report," Kevin said during the meeting.
The board discussed policy follow-ups the assessment implies. Members identified several priority items: (1) update the 2002 master public tree plan and list its short- and long-term goals in the new report; (2) consider targeted updates to the tree protection ordinance; and (3) explore regulatory options or incentives for tree retention and replanting on private property. Board members stressed that replanting can restore canopy but takes many years; they also urged better monitoring of recent clearcuts and replanting efforts.
Members recommended prioritizing outreach and implementation by census tract and other criteria the report suggested: heat-island mapping, proximity to green corridors, and equitable distribution based on census canopy percentages. The university report divides the city into tracts labeled A through E; board members noted downtown and the southeastern tract as high-priority areas for additional plantings or conservation.
The group agreed on a public-engagement sequence: publish a brief press release, prepare a fuller communications plan with talking points, create short presentations for city council and for public forums, and schedule public meetings in the fall (board members noted October as Urban Forestry Month) to share results and solicit community input. Kevin and others recommended budgeting staff time to attend multiple outreach events, including service clubs and established public meetings.
Board members endorsed using I-Tree analyses to quantify ecosystem-service losses and potential monetary benefits of canopy increases. The board also suggested a two-track approach for canopy targets: set measurable, realistic short-term goals with annual benchmarks while also considering an aspirational long-term target to guide planting and conservation strategy.
On specifics from the assessment, members raised technical questions they want corrected in the final document. One board member observed the report text asserts "no significant difference in canopy cover by census tract," while data tables show a wide range (about 57.6% to 26.3%); members asked Kevin to ask Western Washington for clarification or amended wording. The board also asked for clearer mapping layers for tree height classes (the report includes a map with vegetation heights, including areas identified as greater than 125 feet) and for ownership overlays to identify which high-canopy parcels are public versus private.
Administrative items tied to the grant were also discussed: verifying invoice processing, confirming that deliverables are marked complete for DNR, and listing the board's recommended updates to existing policy documents for incorporation into Kevin's final report. The board set outreach and report edits as immediate tasks and discussed planting and budget options for Fall implementation.
Votes and formal actions: the board approved the minutes from April's meeting by voice vote during the meeting; the motion and second were not recorded by name in the transcript. The board recorded the approval on the public minutes.
The board closed the discussion by assigning members to provide suggested edits and outreach materials quickly so the city can finalize the DNR grant package. Kevin and board members agreed he will prepare the city's official report drawing on Western Washington's assessment and the board's recommendations.
