For the Sake of Trees, Let’s Talk About Football

Published as op-ed article in Huntsville Times, 4-19-20

This is about football … and trees.

I say that because I’d like to get a lot of people’s attention, and I’ll explain the connection shortly. But first I need to touch on the subject of trees.

As many Huntsville residents know, we live in a “Tree City USA.” Such a designation is made annually by the National Arbor Day Foundation and Huntsville has received it 29 times. This is gratifying to those of us who love and value trees, who realize that trees are a huge contributor to a high quality of urban life.

What’s not so well known is that the Tree City USA designation is based on meeting four standards: (1) having a municipal Tree Commission; (2) having a tree-related ordinance in the municipal code; (3) holding an annual Arbor Day observance; and (4) funding urban forestry work at a level of $2 per capita per year, which in the case of Huntsville means spending at least $400,000 a year on it. There’s no question Huntsville meets the first three standards, and we have assurances from officials that the city definitely spends well over $400K a year on trees, so apparently we meet all four standards.

Nevertheless, there’s a problem about this and the best way to explain it is to bring in the subject of football. It’s a safe bet that most people in Alabama are familiar with the term “process,” thanks to Alabama Head Football Coach Nick Saban. “The Process” is what he refers to when explaining why the UA team has been so consistently successful. Most people though, don’t really care about details of Saban’s “process.” What they care about is the results, the most important of which is the team’s season ending win-loss record. 

The connection to trees and our urban forest is that all four of the Arbor Day Foundation’s standards are about process, not results. Why point that out? Because, with trees in an urban setting, it’s not easy to measure results. Probably the best indicator would be to know, at different points in time, how many trees the city has per square mile. Urban forestry experts refer to this as canopy coverage or density. Some big cities such as Washington D.C. and New York do periodically determine their canopy coverage, which is stated as a percentage of urban area. The reason for determining and tracking coverage is that it’s the factor that actually determines whether city streets and residential areas are more shady and comfortable in the summer. It also determines whether city residents are receiving a number of other well documented tree benefits. As the Arbor Day Foundation states, “Trees provide the very necessities of life itself. They clean our air, protect our drinking water, create healthy communities, and feed the human soul.”

The main point I want to make is that the Foundation is definitely serving a commendable overall function. Their mission and efforts in pursuit of it are highly laudable. But, they’re missing the boat in one critical way when they judge cities by process rather than results. One might also point out that even with process, there should be more detailed questions such as how strong the tree ordinance is, and how effective the tree commission is in influencing policies and operations.

I’m fairly certain the Foundation would like to base their Tree City designations on data such as percentage of tree canopy coverage. The problem is, it’s just not available in most cases. That kind of measurement is labor intensive and expensive to obtain.

Without such data, one can try to make a judgement about whether tree coverage is being gained or lost by simply looking for certain indicators, and I’ve been doing so. For instance, in my neighborhood I’ve been noticing numerous trees having been cut down and removed because of factors like old age, disease, storm damage and sometimes residents’ fear that a tree appears to threaten property damage. 

In some cases, young trees are planted as replacements, but unfortunately, not often enough to compensate for the losses. The result is gradual attrition in the overall tree population. Admittedly though, such a determination is unscientific and subject to challenge.

All of which leads me to say that our city officials should make an effort to come up with measured results, similar to the way a company prepares an annual balance sheet to show how it performed over the year.

For instance, if they say that X number of trees were planted in the city during a given year, they should also be able to say how many trees were lost for various reasons.

What makes this so important is that trees can’t be regrown in a year. A mature tree can be cut down in a day but it takes decades to replace that loss, especially of the most beneficial varieties -- for instance the large oaks that contribute so much to an overall canopy.

Which leads me to say this: I have a sign in my front yard, by the street. It reads “Slow down. Drive like your child’s life depends on it.”

I think something similar could be said about our urban forest, especially as we prepare to observe Arbor Day: “Take care of our trees. Plant them. Your child’s future depends on it.”

***