Tumwater reviews Urban Forestry Management Plan; staff outlines canopy targets, inventory updates and code changes
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
City staff presented an action report on Tumwater's Urban Forestry Management Plan, detailing seedling orders, an inventory update, proposed landscape-code changes (larger tree islands), HOA outreach, and tribal forage-access work. Members pressed on development-driven canopy loss and implementation capacity.
City of Tumwater staff briefed the Tree Board on Nov. 10 about progress implementing the Urban Forestry Management Plan, including near-term planting, inventory verification and forthcoming code revisions meant to support long-term canopy goals.
Brian, the city's urban-forestry staff lead, told the board he reviewed every action in the plan and could speak to approximately "90%" of items. He said staff have ordered "our first seedling order, a few 100 trees" and are planning winter plantings on city-owned parcels that are unlikely to be developed to increase overall canopy. He also described work to improve planting practices and root barriers to reduce sidewalk lifting.
Board members repeatedly raised the problem of private redevelopment causing net canopy loss on individual properties. "When I see development ... we're removing canopy on private land ... it results in a net loss of canopy in that pot of land," one member said; staff responded that the city can influence private planting through development review, replanting requirements and by planting on undevelopable city-owned parcels to seek a net gain over time.
Staff described planned code updates to landscaping standards, noting current parking standards are typically "one tree island per 10 spaces" and that the draft code will seek to enlarge islands so trees have sufficient root volume to reach maturity (minimum islands proposed to increase from eight feet toward 10 feet). Staff also noted the plan uses the Revised Code of Washington definition for community and urban forest (RCW 76.15.001) and recommended a clearer definition page in future plan iterations.
Other implementation highlights included inventory work (ground-truthing thousands of trees with interns and DNR training), outreach to roughly 108 homeowners'associations, pilot programs to plant in parks and undevelopable parcels, and a developing edible-forest concept that staff said should include tribal consultation on forage access and definitions of "edible" species.
Board members urged a mix of code updates, education and programmatic plantings. Staff flagged capacity constraints: current allocations leave some actions "below the line" until more staff time or interns are available. The board set follow-up discussions on code and outreach timing as the draft code is prepared for the tree board and later joint review with the planning commission.
The presentation closed with staff inviting the board to volunteer for inventories, outreach and future planting efforts; no formal policy vote was taken at this meeting. The board scheduled the next substantive opportunities for review and comment as draft code and design guidelines are circulated.