Excellent document produced by diligence and hard work. I would like to see a City yhat prioritizes conservation, preservation and protection of our forest remnants.

Comments on the draft plan: 1. A lot of work went into this detailed plan, 2. Cost-effectiveness should be an explicit principle and a measurement criteria. The taxpayer will be the primary funder so actions should have benefits that outweigh the costs and thus contribute to a reduction of taxpayer burden, 3. It would be very helpful to have pictures and other aides to identify the many NNIs mentioned as most people will not recognize them by their species name alone.

Daniel's Run Park is now also invaded by non-native Rosa Multiflora, which is spreading very fast. A whole section of trail in also invaded by Japanese Knotweed and Porcelain Berry. And Lesser Celendine carpets a section of the trail early Spring.

The proposed George Snyder Trail is redundant. There is already a wide trail, that roughly parallels the proposed trail. The existing trail is bikeable, except for a couple spots. The existing trail simply needs to be improved.

The proposed trail is located on a slope and would require a retaining wall. Construction for the wall will destroy a considerable amount of wildlife habitat. The training wall will also split the park in an upper section and a lower section, preventing much wildlife the full use of the park. Wildlife trapped in the upper section would no longer have access to the stream. The proposed trail is a disaster in the making. Please improve on the current trail. Pay the money back, it is only a very small portion of the Fairfax City Budget.

The UFMP should start by planting trees on park boundary areas where scrub foliage resides, but that needs to be done on a case by case basis. Westmore would be a good place to start because it has a lot of area to plant while maintaining open spaces. Additional trees could probably be planted around University Drive end of "the bowl" at Van Dyck Park. You can encourage residents to plant trees, but that can only go as far as a resident's willingness. Part of the UFMP also needs to address "maintenance" of trees, e.g. removing dead trees by City staff before they become a hazard and plans for replacement.
Unfortunately, Fairfax City Planning Staff and past City Councils keep approving large houses on small lots and high-density dwellings, removing any chance of large "canopy" trees being planted, and approving developers and projects that clear-cut swaths of land [see Accotink Creek Reshaping in Mosby Woods and the pushed for trail projects through woods redundant to existing paths], so the goal of the UFMP is at odds with the priorities of others in City Hall and their consultants.

Removed by moderator.

We need more deep forests and greenery because more trees will bring improvements to the environment, but for some people, LitonLaser believes that they also have the right to dispose of trees located on their legal land.

Removed by moderator.

There are several rectangular planting spaces along Chain Bridge Road between the west exit of the parking garage and North Street, along North Street from Chain Bridge Road and Blenheim Blvd., and north on University Drive from North Street to Whitehead Street that are in dire need of landscaping attention. They either have partial plantings, failed plantings, or no plantings. They are an eyesore past which I walk my Lab Sunny two to three times everyday. I have corresponded with C.J. Crabtree in regard to this streetside matter. At our last exchange, he shared with me the engagement of an Urban Forester. In my view, Fairfax City needs to focus some attention on streetscape, not just tree scape.SMChase

Working with home owners to replace trees in some of our older developments would be welcomed. We have lost a considerable number of trees in the Warren Woods, Westmore & Ardmore areas. Many due to trees dying. Hopefully sooner then later this area will be addressed.

The new developments, Breezeway, NorthFax and West Drive, along with all other new developments, must be compelled to plant trees. The development at Northfax and West Drive removed significant trees and wildlife habitat; within their plans, there is little in the way of replenishing the tree canopy. The City needs to update its zoning plans to ensure that such developments protect trees and their roots and ensure suitable planting takes place, and that tree care is maintained. The maintenance can be compelled through the provision of HOA rules and orders. Neigbouring juristrictions have good examples. eg https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Programs/Building/Resources/Tree-Replacement

In looking at the comments, I see opportunities for communication about how trees directly benefit property owners (lower energy costs, higher property value) and boost the value and comfort of whole neighborhoods, even without delving into the many environmental benefits. The City can also better communicate that there IS a carrot for planting and maintaining trees: You can send a simple form about your trees and get a reduction on your stormwater utility fee. Year after year, you can benefit from keeping your same trees! The City could send this tool/a link to it via email to residents.

The Westmore park on Berry St. is in awful conditions. This large green area has been neglected for years. The park is in need of more trees and better care of the existing ones.

Trees not only improve the air quality on hot days for our children, but also benefit their mental health. Sterile lawns loaded with pesticides do no good for our collective physical and mental health, our pets and the wildlife. One has to think beyond oneself if we want future generations to live decently.

I should be able to cut down any or all the trees on my property if I desire with no permits required. It's MY property that I own. Not anyone else's.

"Rather than just growing trees on city property, we should also think of ways to encourage people to remove invasive plants from their lawns and plant more trees" We already have ordinances to discourage tree removal, however they are rarely enforced and there are plans to make even more burdensome regulations that, based on historical performance, will also not be enforced. So, staff, enough with the "stick" and figure out a carrot. Give me a credit for my trees or I'll slowly remove them within the confines of your regulations of course :-) ..!.

Individuals and companies who are building new homes or businesses should not be given blanket permission to cut down all the mature trees on any given property. Rather, a careful assessment should be done, and only necessary cutting should be permitted. The same should hold true for existing properties where a homeowner should not be allowed to cut down any and all trees on his/her property (unless clearly dangerous) without a permit. That permit should be given only after careful assessment with regard to canopy and wildlife disturbance. One of my neighbors cut down 12 oak trees and another one cut down 21, both saying they don’t like leaves. And that’s just 2 tiny examples in a small neighborhood of dramatic degradation of my own adjacent property, to say nothing of harm to tree canopy and native wildlife populations.

There should be a low barrier to entry to encourage large tree planting on private property. Does a program exist to get trees into people's yards that want them? DC has a few programs like that for residential plantings. Also, cutting down trees over a certain circumference shouldn't be allowed (assuming the tree is healthy), if we want to maintain a good tree canopy, reduce the heat island effect, and help people and businesses save on energy costs. Maintaining our current tree canopy is key to that and planting a 6'-7' tree after cutting down a 40' one is not an equal exchange.

Rather than just growing trees on city property, we should also think of ways to encourage people to remove invasive plants from their lawns and plant more trees.