Time to improve Seattle's tree regulations

In the 1990s, Seattle passed tree protection regulations that were ahead of our time. These regulations are now scheduled to be updated as we have fallen behind science and other cities in protecting our urban forest infrastructure. Here in Maple Leaf, our award-winning fight to save Waldo Woods has made our community a citywide leader on this issue.

In the last decade, scientists have made great strides in understanding the unique role urban trees play in reducing the environmental impact of dense urban areas. Dense urban areas are not inherently environmentally friendly. Congestion, heat sink effects, the high carbon dioxide aspect of concrete, and nearly everything connected with creating and running a dense urban area is bad for the environment. However, science also tells us collecting people in one area balances out the negatives from the deforestation necessary if everyone had 40 acres and a mule.

But it is a balance. Too few trees exacerbates the inherent harms of the dense urban form and overwhelms the density benefit. Seattleites don't want to live in an area without trees so fewer urban trees contributes to sprawl. Science is proving trees at the "point of pollution" have special benefits. Trees over impermeable surfaces reduce runoff to our salmon streams. Trees over blacktop reduce the heat sink effect. Trees filter particulates generated by the buses and delivery vehicles necessary for the urban form. Trees, of course, absorbs carbon dioxide. Just recently, scientists proved trees uptake VOCs (volatile organic compounds) that contribute to atmospheric problems including greenhouse effects.

Due to increased scientific understanding, urban trees have transitioned from being “pretty‑pretty green things" to the level of infrastructure, performing public works responsibilities just like our stormwater, road, and public building infrastructure. This is why we now talk about "Urban Forest Infrastructure" instead of "trees".

The Seattle City Council specified in our Comprehensive Plan that Seattle's canopy cover should be 40%. Former Mayor Nickels set a goal for canopy cover in his Urban Forest Management Plan to be 30%. The current canopy cover is somewhere between 18-23%, depending on how you measure it.

On the negative side of the ledger are trees lost during development. In a measure of canopy coverage taken between 2001 and 2007, here is how Seattle's canopy cover fared on lots that have been developed.



On the positive side of the ledger, natural growth combines with significant new canopy acreage from trees on City-owned right-of-way (ROW) . Substantially comprised of new plantings of street trees, growth in ROW canopy cover comprised 67% of the city's (theoretical) canopy growth from 2003 to 2007.



Seattle's ReLeaf program, the Seattle Department of Transportation's (SDOT) efforts, and especially efforts of volunteers who requested, planted, and adopted trees should be applauded. That's the good news. The bad news is these gains are not sustainable over the long term and they represent the most expensive canopy increases in terms of the City budget and use of our tax dollars. Also, street trees usually only survive 20-30 years depending on location and species.

In August 2009, the Seattle City Council unanimously passed Resolution 31138 giving pretty specific direction to the Seattle Department of Planning and Development (DPD) about what Council thought should be in a new tree ordinance. In July 2010, DPD released for comment proposed updated rules for trees in Seattle. When you read Resolution 31138 and DPD's proposal, you will notice there is not much in common. This is a concern to us and to urban forest advocates across Seattle.

The table below is compares the regulations currently in place with DPD's proposal. If you click on the graphic below, it takes you to a PDF you can print (we also define these terms at the bottom of this web page).

As you can see, we go from basic protections to no protections for exceptional (large) trees or tree groves. There are some positives in DPD's proposal. A bonding requirement on survival of newly planted trees and preservation of existing trees is a good idea. The point system for single-family redevelopment is also an idea worth building upon.

Another aspect of what's been happening with our tree canopy is a loss of our native conifers. These are being replaced by deciduous trees. In Seattle's climate, however, this is not an equal replacement. Conifers do a better job of screening wind during winter, saving more energy than deciduous trees. Conifers do a better job of clearing particulate from the air than deciduous trees. Most importantly, conifers prevent twice the rainfall from hitting the ground as deciduous trees. The more rain that hits the ground, the more flooding and the higher our utility bills to pay for more stormwater infrastructure.

Who manages Seattle's trees?

A 2009 Seattle Auditor's report confirmed that seven Seattle departments have a role in managing our urban forest infratructure. The Auditor strongly suggested this fragmented system be consolidated, suggesting the outcome would be better management, less duplication of effort, and potential cost savings.

It is important to note YOU also manage Seattle's trees. The trees on your property are every bit an important part of Seattle's Urban Forest Infrastructure as the trees in our parks and along our streets. The tree in your front yard helps reduce your water bill and your neighbor's water bill because it prevents rain from entering the stormwater treatment system. The tree in your neighbor's back yard scrubs fine particles from the air, reducing your healthcare bills over your lifetime. The trees on your block help slow the wind so your neighbors on the next block have lower winter heating costs. The fact everyone's trees benefit everyone is a key aspect of the Urban Forest Infrastructure concept.

The table below shows the primary managers of Seattle's trees in terms of acreage under management according to a 2007 analysis.



Clearly, what you do with the trees on your property has a huge impact on Seattle's urban forest infrastructure. The other interesting item is DPD's numbers. Despite responsibility for managing only a fraction of a percent of Seattle's trees in any given year, DPD was placed in charge of created the new urban forest management proposal. It makes very little sense for the agency with the least connection with Seattle’s urban forest to lead the development of Seattle’s new approach to urban forest infrastructure management. The independent, science-based Urban Forest Commission or at least another department with more urban forestry experience (and a better track record) might be a better choice to lead the process.

We need to explain the asterisk (*) in the above table. Data provided in response to a Public Disclosure Request did not include what acreage DPD managed in 2007. DPD "manages" urban forest infrastructure only when it comes through the land use permitting process. In the four-year period from 2003 to 2007, 124.59 acres of urban forest canopy cover came into DPD's process. After DPD approved substantial cutting, 89.32 acres was left (a 28% decrease, FYI). To generate a comparable 2007 number, we divided the 89.32 by four and rounded it up to 23. Regardless of whether we use the 124.59 number, the 89.32 number, or the 23 number, the point stands: DPD manages a tiny proportion of Seattle's urban forest canopy in any one year.

Maple Leaf's involvement

This page is the beginning of what we intend to be a detailed discussion on a science-based remodel of Seattle's tree ordinances. Fundamentally, we believe new tree regulations should reflect the fact science has determined urban trees function as part of our urban infrastructure. DPD's proposal fails to meet this standard.

Maple Leaf became involved in urban forest infrastructure issues in 2006 when we learned a developer was planning on removing or damaging 80-90% of Waldo Woods, an intact urban forest of mature Douglas Firs located near the new reservoir park in our neighborhood. Because of our multi-year experience saving Waldo Woods and the positive publicity we gained for the effort, we often urge the Seattle City Council and others to use Waldo Woods as a test case. While we've thankfully saved Waldo Woods, the situation still makes a good example.

Below is a table showing how Waldo Woods would be impossible to save under DPD's proposed rules.

We believe any new tree ordinance that makes it harder to preserve Waldo Woods is inadequate.

With community support, and working with others across Seattle, we've already had a positive impact on Seattle's tree regulations. Unanimous votes by the Seattle City Council on the Interim Tree Ordinance and multiple Resolutions have resulted in protections for tree groves, protections for exceptional trees outside the development process, and the creation of a science-based Urban Forestry Commission.

The Urban Forestry Commission was set up by City Council and former Mayor Nickels to advise the city on urban forest infrastructure issues from a scientific, economic, and land use perspective. It contains scientists, tree experts, economists, wildlife experts, and development representation. Maple Leaf worked with other groups around the city to create this group.

The Urban Forestry Commission had this to say about DPD's proposal:

“The commission believes that the deregulatory nature of the proposed changes neither preserves nor enhances Seattle’s Urban Forest, leaving it more vulnerable to attrition.”

The UFC's initial response letter can be found here.Their full response can be found here.

The Maple Leaf Community Council Executive Board also sent our preliminary comments. You can find the text of our letter here. We delivered our full comments more recently, which you can find here.

We encourage everyone to send their comments about DPD's proposed regulations. Comments are officially accepted until October 31, 2010, but don't hesitate to chime in after that date. Comments should be sent to the following email addresses:

Brennon.Staley@Seattle.gov - Brennon is DPD's point person on the new rules
Mike.McGinn@Seattle.gov - Mayor Mike McGinn should know his DPD is missing the boat here
Richard.Conlin@Seattle.gov - Council President Richard Conlin has been a big advocate for trees.
Sally.Clark@Seattle.gov - Councilmember Clark chairs the Council's land use committee.
Urban Forest Commission c/o Sandra.PintodeBader@seattle.gov
MLCC@MapleLeafCommunity.org - That's us. Please send us a copy.

This page will grow over the coming months with more information.

To stay informed on this issue, we encourage you to click the red box at the right (or click here) and sign up for our email lists. We'll send out emails specific to this topic to our Land Use & Transportation and our "Everything" list.

David Miller is the person on the Executive Board who is leading our effort. If you have questions, he's happy to respond.

Some definitions

Just as Seattle learned of the wide-reaching benefits of recycling through outreach and education, the modern language of trees as urban infrastructure instead of just "pretty-pretty green things" will take time. It's a process that has to happen, however, for Seattle to remain livable.

Here are some definitions to help out the education process. If you are stumped as to other terms, send us an email and we'll add them to the list.

Urban Forest Infrastructure