Thursday, October 1, 2026
.jpeg)
The City of Lacey is looking for a consulting firm to update its Urban Forestry Management Plan.
The current plan was adopted in 2021. Since then, the city has grown into the largest municipality in Thurston County.
The city has secured between $100,000 and $150,000 in grant funding for the project, and responding firms must demonstrate they can deliver the work within that range.
Tree canopy coverage within city limits dropped to 28.3% in 2020 from 43% in 2004, a remote sensing assessment showed. The 2021 plan attributed much of that decline to rapid development, particularly in northeast Lacey.
Forested land in that area has been converted for residential, commercial, and industrial use. As available land grows scarcer, more projects are going up through infill and redevelopment on sites with few or no existing trees.
City staff is now conducting a new canopy assessment to establish a current baseline. The selected consultant will use those findings to update the plan, identify priority areas for tree planting and preservation, and develop measurable canopy goals and performance metrics.
The revised plan must address stormwater management, wildfire risk, greenhouse gas reduction and equitable distribution of tree canopy benefits.
Research cited in the 2021 plan found strategically placed trees can intercept up to 90% of solar energy and help reduce stormwater runoff. The city has said those benefits are not distributed evenly throughout its neighborhoods.
The updated plan must meet state requirements, including compliance with the Healthy Environment for All Act, known as the HEAL Act. It must also align to Lacey's 2025 Comprehensive Plan, an update that added climate and housing elements. The two priorities can conflict when housing development accelerates tree removal.
Firms will be evaluated on experience in urban forestry management, tree canopy assessments, climate resilience planning, as well as public engagement with an equity focus.
Statements of qualifications are limited to 10 pages, and must include resumes for project team members, three examples of previous work and three professional references.
Key dates for the solicitation are as follows:
To review the complete request for qualifications and submission details, visit the city's website.
6 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
2theroots
Housing and trees do not have to conflict. This is a myth spread by developers who find it more convenient to clear cut a lot before developing rather than working around trees that will be saved. Due to their ability to sequester and store carbon, manage rainwater, remove pollution and a huge number of health benefits we really must preserve trees as we develop since they are more effective at al these tasks the older they are. An easy way to do this AND make sure housing is affordable is to allow big set backs. This makes the housing foot print smaller (although it can build up to add square feet). The recent trend of building out to 5 and 10 ' from the edge of the property just make big "mcMansions" large expensive housing that drives up the cost of housing everywhere. We need to build smaller houses or duplexes and triplexes in order to have affordable housing and that will also keep trees present.
Tuesday, June 23 Report this
ClimateTeam
Ironic since the city is offering communities to remove large trees for free to take care of sidewalks. They want to replace beautiful large trees with little twigs! This is NOT good for the climate or the beauty of Lacey. No wonder the tree canopy has gone down. The city signed on to the Thurston Climate Mitigation Plan which calls for the protection of trees and yet they are eliminating trees to protect sidewalks, which do nothing to stop climate change.
Tuesday, June 23 Report this
johngreen
Climate Team hit the nail on the head. Can you imagine cutting down mature, healthy trees to repair sidewalks? This city is run by people who don't care about climate change, property values or aesthetics in our community. Cutting down 140 trees to repair sidewalks when they could be repaired without removing the trees is disgraceful. They have the equipment to do this and it is cheaper and less invasive. Other cities are doing it as well This goes against their comprehensive plan and other climate goals.
Lacey should change it's moniker from "tree city USA" to "sidewalk city USA", much more appropriate.
Tuesday, June 23 Report this
Alangl
Removing a mature tree to fix a root-lifted sidewalk is like amputating an arm to fix a bruised finger. These mature trees are monuments to 20+ years of healthy growth. The benefits they yield are very significant. I pity the poor folks living along the path of this destruction. Their outdoor environment is about to be significantly degraded as is the value of their homes.
It appears that the city of Lacey’s Public Works Department is totally focused on concrete maintenace and is indifferent to the “Urban Forestry”..
Friday, June 26 Report this
Yeti1981
I think everyone agrees that preserving mature trees is a worthwhile goal. Where I think the conversation often goes off track is when builders and developers are portrayed as if they're making policy decisions. Developers don't establish zoning, setbacks, engineering standards, utility requirements, stormwater regulations, tree retention requirements, or permit conditions. They design projects to comply with the framework adopted by the community.
If the current system makes preserving mature trees difficult or expensive, that's a policy discussion worth having. Communities have tools to incentivize or require greater tree preservation while still allowing housing to be built. Those policies also need to be predictable because uncertainty, redesigns, and delays ultimately increase the cost of housing. Rather than framing this as developers versus the environment, I think we should focus on creating regulations that better align our goals. We need more housing, we want healthier urban forests, and we should strive for policies that make both possible.
Friday, June 26 Report this
Yeti1981
@2theroots, I actually agree with you on a few things. Housing and trees don't have to be in conflict, mature trees provide tremendous environmental benefits, and smaller homes, duplexes, and triplexes can absolutely be part of improving affordability.
Where I'd respectfully disagree is the idea that this is a myth spread by developers. Builders generally don't decide the regulatory framework they're working within. They design projects to comply with zoning, setbacks, engineering standards, utility requirements, stormwater regulations, fire access, and tree retention ordinances adopted by the jurisdiction.
Friday, June 26 Report this