Arlington bills itself as a world-class, sustainable community. Its Urban Forest Master Plan, adopted in 2004 (https://www.arlingtonva.us/trees/how-arlington-rates-trees/), states:
Arlington County will strive to have a sustainable urban forest that contributes to the livability of our urban community. Our trees are recognized as part of our green infrastructure that provides economic and environmental benefits. The current trend of tree canopy loss will be slowed and efforts made to reverse this trend through best practices in tree planting, preservation, and maintenance while fostering a sense of stewardship among residents.
Page 3.
To implement this vision, the Master Plan provided 42 recommendations. The very first recommendation, with a short-term target (1-2 years), was:
1) Determine the best methodology for refining our GIS analysis of the tree canopy. The most appropriate imagery should also be determined. New higher resolution satellite imagery is becoming increasingly available for analysis of tree canopy coverage.
Page 14.
Other recommendations included:
16) Proactively share our data, standards, regulations and policies with other stewards of our urban forest such as property owners and the development community.
Page 19.
25) Continue to monitor tree health, forest structure and the occurrence of invasives in Parks and naturally forested areas throughout the County.
26) Begin to inventory trees in parks, natural areas and other public facilities.
Page 23.
31) Ensure that best management practices (BMPs) are used when providing tree maintenance in critical areas such as riparian stream buffers.
32) Use the street tree inventory to determine conflicts with the built environment (sidewalks and tree grates) and prioritize their mitigation.
33) Update the GIS street tree inventory with tree maintenance and removal data.
34) Continue to systematically review potential tree hazards using the tree inventory. Consider the development of a Tree Risk Management Plan.
35) Using the tree inventory, develop a realistic plan for a five year pruning cycle of the trees in the street ROW.
36) Create a GIS mapping program for invasives to track progress and assist with management.
Pages 24-25.
We have not accomplished the goals we set for ourselves twelve years ago.
For example:
-- Arlington has some GIS data, but we don’t have near what the Master Plan said we would have. For example:
-- The latest tree canopy GIS data is from 2011 – five years ago - and the data did not even come from Arlington County; it came from the University of Vermont with funds from Casey Trees. (See https://www.arlingtonva.us/trees/how-arlington-rates-trees/ and next links below.)
-- We do not have a GIS street tree inventory with tree maintenance and removal data.
-- If we don’t have good, up-to-date, public GIS databases then we are not going to be able to track what’s happening to our trees and we won’t be able to preserve and grow our tree canopy as the 2004 Master Plan committed us to do. The consequences of such negligence are clear:
-- Contrary to the 2004 Master Plan vision statement which said that the trend of tree canopy loss will be slowed and efforts made to reverse this trend, the data shows that our tree canopy actually decreased from 43% in 2008 to 40% in 2011.
https://arlingtonva.s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2013/09/Tree-canopy-analysis-2011-36-36.pdf
https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2015/02/Loss-Gain-Large.pdf
So we’re not meeting our own promises, and we are not doing as well as, for example, Washington, DC and Palo Alto, California:
http://opendata.dc.gov/datasets?q=Tree
http://canopy.org/tree-info/trees-in-palo-alto/
http://199.33.32.49/OpenGisData/
We bill ourselves as a world-class community. We need to step it up so we actually do what we say we’re going to do. That means we need to put more resources into the County departments that work these issues.
This would include:
* Stronger enforcement of laws and regulations that affect mature trees, wildlife habitat, water and waste management on building sites, etc. This will require more resources and people in, e.g., the building inspection department. From what I’ve seen in recent months, teardowns and building projects are going on in residential areas without adequate attention from the County. A number of projects do not even post building and other permits.
* More resources and staff in the County's urban forestry office in the Department of Parks and Recreation. It appears that this office is significantly understaffed and under resourced if we expect it to fulfill its assigned tasks.
* Provide resources and direction necessary so the County can finally implement the 2004 Urban Forest Master Plan, including the GIS tree database.
* Provide more funds and resources for conservation land acquisition (e.g., to protect wildlife habitats).
* Set up a process whereby property owners can receive property tax breaks when they reduce the value of their property by donating conservation easements to organizations like, e.g., the Northern Virginia Conservation Trust (http://nvct.org/). This could create incentives for current property owners - even those who haven't started to consider selling their homes: For example, a lot owner who donated a conservation easement to protect mature trees on his/her lot could receive years of property tax breaks while still living in his/her home. My understanding is that Arlington does not have such a procedure in place, although Fairfax County does.
* Put more people and resources into creating and publicizing a better visualisation for residents and County Government of what a 30% population increase over the next 25 years (as contemplated by the GLUP) would mean for trees, wildlife, quality of life, climate change, traffic, noise, exhaust, air pollution, the environment generally, and County finances and government.
The point is: The County puts out a lot of words about how great we are at protecting tree canopy and the environment but we’re not walking the walk. Let’s do it.
Bill Roos