Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Resilient Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fairfax staff propose PFM amendment to favor climate‑resilient tree species; board urges outreach
Summary
Staff proposed edits to the Public Facilities Manual to prioritize tree species more likely to survive changing climate conditions, expand species options on the PFM, and add new tree‑use categories; supervisors pressed for public education, faster implementation and guidance for tree‑save areas.
County staff presented a proposed amendment to the Public Facilities Manual (PFM) intended to encourage tree species more likely to survive climate stresses and provide long‑term canopy benefits on development plans.
"We are experiencing warmer, wetter, weirder climatic conditions," Allison Homer of the Office of Environmental and Energy Coordination told the committee, describing shifts in hardiness zones and a trend of storm‑related tree losses. Staff said the county’s hardiness mapping shows much of Fairfax moving from zone 7a to 7b between 2012 and 2023 and projected to reach zone 8 by about 2040.
The draft amendment updates Table 12.14 (Tree Selection and Canopy Cover Guide), adds three new tree uses — forested area, floodplain and street tree — and adjusts tree credits and trait listings to encourage planting trees that are non‑invasive, preferably native, commercially available and resilient to heat, drought, wind and flooding. Staff said they evaluated species traits using multiple reputable sources and engaged stakeholders, including Virginia Tech forestry faculty, to refine the list.
Under the draft, staff recommended that 67 species currently listed remain with updated traits, 46 species be added, and 34 species be removed, increasing the menu of PFM species from 102 to 113. Adam LaPera, chief of the Forest Conservation Branch in Land Development Services, said staff will also improve tree ID tags (replacing colorful ribbon with durable tags) and produce public‑friendly guidance to explain recommended species and what tree tags mean for residents.
Supervisors pressed staff about whether guidance would apply only to new site plans or also inform decisions about tree‑save areas and pre‑development inventories. Staff said the PFM typically applies to site plans but that they are exploring ways to assess which trees in tree‑save areas merit protection versus replacement with more resilient species.
Board members expressed strong support for outreach and urged staff to move the change through the public‑hearing process without undue delay; staff said a polished draft will be posted for public review before the hearing in spring or summer 2026.
Next steps: staff will incorporate stakeholder comments into the draft, post the revised PFM amendment for review, and bring the item forward for public hearing and Board consideration.
