ARLINGTO N COUNTY URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION

2 7 0 0 S o u t h Ta y l o r S t r ee t

A r l i n g t o n , V A 2 2 20 6

March 15, 2017 The Honorable Jay Fisette, Chair Arlington County Board 2100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22201 Subject: The Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Dear Chair Fisette: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Fiscal Year 2018 Proposed Budget. This year we are pleased to note that tree planting continues to be supported through the County’s Stormwater Fund and that invasive plant control funding remains in the operational budget. The FY2017 Critical Measures showing a net gain of 157 street trees and 214 acres actively managed for invasive plant control demonstrate the impact of this funding We wish to draw your attention to the second bullet point in the Proposed Budget for the Forestry Unit on web page 679. The iTree Eco study conducted in 2016 by Arlington County’s Urban Forester with volunteer assistance provided data on the financial value of our urban trees that goes beyond their beauty: “Based on national research, the economic value of the trees located in the County can be quantified in the following ways: $3.59 million/year of pollution removal; $1.28 million/year of carbon sequestration; and $117 thousand/year of avoided stormwater runoff. The overall structural value of Arlington’s trees (e.g., the cost of having to replace a trees a similar tree) is $1.36 billion.” Yet Arlington is losing these valuable trees on private land primarily due to infill development. In 2008, the Virginia Tech tree canopy cover study showed Arlington County with 43% coverage, the 2011 University of Vermont study showed us being reduced to 40%, and the 2016 iTree Eco estimate is only 31% canopy. The iTree estimate unfortunately cannot show the specific canopy in a neighborhood as satellite mapping does. (See attached loss of tree canopy by neighborhood from 2008 to 2011) The Urban Forestry Commission desperately needs an updated study that will allow outreach with the Tree Canopy Fund and tree distribution to target neighborhoods losing canopy. Neighborhood Civic Associations need to know if they have lost or gained tree canopy so they can educate residents and work with developers. The satellite imagery from 2016 already exists in the public domain of the National Forest Service and there are universities with software to create such maps, at an estimated cost around $15,000.

ARLINGTO N COUNTY URBAN FORESTRY COMMISSION

2 7 0 0 S o u t h Ta y l o r S t r ee t

A r l i n g t o n , V A 2 2 20 6

We strongly recommend a one-time funding be added to the Parks and Natural Resources Division to contract with a university to update the tree canopy cover data. The Urban Forestry Commission is aware of the tight fiscal climate, yet we would be remiss if we did not also encourage the County Board to protect the $1.39 Billion urban forestry infrastructure by increasing the maintenance budget by $100,000. Like all infrastructure, trees must be maintained to provide the greatest lifetime benefit. The overall tree maintenance budget of $275,000 must cover tree removal and cleanup, watering and pruning. Only 6% of the County’s street trees are pruned annually creating a 17-year cycle whereas the national recommendation is every five years. The iTree Eco study showed that 26% of trees on public lands are in fair or poor condition, and that future pest impacts from Dutch Elm Disease, Emerald Ash Bore, Gypsy Moth, and Southern Pine Bark Beetle are a threat given Arlington’s tree species. Preventive maintenance will be significantly less expensive than later tree removal and replacement. The Urban Forestry Commission thanks you again for the opportunity to provide comments on the Fiscal Year 2018 Proposed Budget. We look forward to our continued cooperation throughout this process. Sincerely,

Nora Palmatier, Chair Urban Forestry Commission cc. Mark Schwartz, County Manager

42%

39%

49%

50%35% 26%

65%

47%

20%

40%

41%

25%

41%

40%

45%

37%

60%

46%

34%

45%

26%

54%

41%

59%

18%

46% 31%

70%

38%

36%

46%

21%

38%

43%

65%

41%

17%

26%

41%46%

47%

21%

49%

36%

75%

18%51%39%41%

53%

31%

50%

12%

55%

18%

60%48%

66%

31%

71%

43%

62%

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp.,GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, OrdnanceSurvey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), and the GIS User Community

LegendPercentage Canopy Cover

12-2020-3030-4040-5050-6060-76

Canopy 2011Overall Cover: 40%

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

k

Canopy Change not calculated for these areas:Federal Lands, Neighborhoods without CivicAssociations, and Potomac Overlook Parkfor this map

k

-6%

-3%

3%

4%

-4%

-5%

-2%

-15%-18% -22%

-9%

-13%

-11%

-5%

2%

2%

-15%

-15%

-15%

-5%

-8%

-15%

-3%

-19%

-4%

-10%

-4%

-17%

2%

6%

-7%

-6%

-5%

-3%-16%

-5%

-2%

-8%

-23%

-12%

-12%

-11%

-1%

-7%

-11%

-8%

3%-1% 17%-2%

2%

-14%

-9%

-5%

0%

-4%

-19%

-10%

-6%

-3%

-5%

-14%

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan,METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2012

LegendTree Canopy ChangePercentage

15-23% Loss10-14% Loss5-9% Loss1-4% LossNo Significant Change1-5% Gain6-15% Gain16-17% Gain

Tree Canopy Change Between 2008 and 2011 (By Civic Association)County-wide change equals 7% canopy loss

Tree Canopy Studies:Virginia Polytechnic University, 2008

University of Vermont, 2012