sueperry

Tue, Jun 1, 2010 : 4:26 p.m.

Our urban forest, and our street trees in particular, are in a poor state of health overall. Their condition has deteriorated considerably over the past 5 to 10 years, and continue to do so. Like budgets for our roads, bridges, and parks, city funds for forestry work and staffing has been cut to bare minimums. We are caring for our urban forest on a "crisis-management basis". Sadly, unlike a road, bridge or park that can be repaired or rebuilt in a relatively short time period, the decline of our trees and urban forest will take many, many years - - perhaps decades, to reverse. We used to have a stellar forestry department and city forester, most of whom were intimately knowledgeable about the trees in Ann Arbor, were passionate about their work, and had many years of experience in their field. They had short and long-range plans and were organized in their work. They were not "tree-huggers" in the pejorative sense, and certainly had to remove many trees in their tenure - - but they also knew the value of saving a tree when reasonably possible, and the importance of regular maintenance and tree replacement. Most of this is now absent in our forestry department. One of the last remaining forestry staff employee that fits this description was fired recently by the city.He had been with the city for many years and was one of the most experienced and knowledgeable field crew they had. At this time of year, it's pretty easy to drive around town and admire our plentiful and beautiful trees - - and make the assumption that all is well. Here is some information about our 40,000+ street trees: (1) Only seven percent of our trees are in the "large" category, according to our $200K Davey Tree Report. A healthy urban forest should have 20%, according to Davey. Trees of this size give the maximum return in terms of energy reduction, stormwater absorption, air quality, and property values. And while the it was said that "Ann Arbor should focus on maintaining and preserving tree canopy to sustain functional benefits while also targeting areas for improvement " current forestry practices do not seem to reflect a desire to keep and maintain our largest trees. Hundreds and hundreds of them have been removed or damaged - - mostly maples - - due to neglect, or at the direction of the forestry department. Obviously, some removals were necessary. And yes, we have an overabundance of maples in our inventory, but does that justify removing large and contributing trees of any species? Some examples: (a) Many or most have been removed due to sidewalk issues. We used to value trees over sidewalks, and employed reasonable methods to retain the tree AND replace the sidewalk. No more.Over and over again I have witnessed the city spend thousands of dollars to remove a large tree, rather than spend a much lesser amount to remedy the sidewalk situation. (b) Homeowner requests. I am aware of many, many instances where a homeowner has expressed concern about a large tree, and asked to have it evaluated, trimmed, or removed. In many, many instances, rather than offering information and alternatives to removal, the city has either agreed with a concerned but uninformed homeowner, or convinced the homeowner that removal is the only option. (c) The Downtown Development Authority is apparently exempt from getting permission to remove trees. They have removed many, many healthy and savable large trees with no communication to or permission from the forestry department. Yes, they've planted 2 or 3 inch diameter trees in the place of the ones they cut down, but it will be 20 years or more before these new trees provide the benefits of the one they removed. (d) Contractor damage. The city is required to ensure that crews working on sidewalks, sewer/water lines, and construction projects observe certain practices to minimize damage to trees in the area. This is seldom enforced, and I have witnessed sidewalk replacement crews, in the interests of expediency, cutting off the major roots of large trees, as well as construction sites with little or no protection to existing trees. These trees will soon die and have to removed in the near future. (2) We have 800+ stumps that need removal. Some of these stumps have been left for 5 years or more. (3) 27,000 ( yes, twenty-seven thousand) of our trees need routine pruning. It has been 7 years or more since crews have performed routine maintenance work on our trees. 4,000 more of them need priority pruning. How many trees can be pruned in the time it takes to remove a large tree? 3? 5? 10? How many of these trees will soon need to be removed due to lack of care? (4) We have 8000 to 9000 city planting sites waiting for a tree - - mostly sites where a tree was removed in past years and not replaced. New trees are being replanted at the rate of about 600 to 700 per year - - much of it done by service clubs and neighborhood volunteer groups. Sadly, many of these trees get little or no care after planting (water and pruning), and thus the survival rate is not very good. Most of the young trees in our inventory are badly in need of a "training prune", which significantly affects their health in later years. So, we've got most of our street trees in need of immediate care, not nearly enough new trees being planted, and no change for the foreseeable future. The city now wants our input for their "Urban Forest Management Plan". More than a "plan" or a "policy" or "guidelines", we need a tree ORDINANCE - - with funding and a governing board to ensure compliancy - just like the building department or planning department or transportation department and their boards and commissions. This is the instrument by which a city can best ensure that their trees will be cared for in a consistent and perpetual manner - - irrespective of the city manager, city council, or mayor in place at any given time. I am cautiously optimistic that these meetings will do more than to simply serve the requirement that public input be allowed. I am also hopeful that the committee,commission, or board formed to develop the Urban Forest Management Plan is not simply many hand-picked "yes" people, already well-entrenched with city government, and appointed for their predictable positions.. It should, and must, be comprised of local residents, owners of local nurseries and tree companies, University of Michigan forestry staff, local tree and environmental advocacy groups, and the like. I imagine there should also be a forestry staff and/or city council appointment as well. The make-up of this group will give us all an early glimpse of what we can expect to happen. Finally, even though our "Tree Town" designation requires, among other items, that we have a tree care ordinance with specific features, we do not - - and apparently never have had a tree ordinance - so I'm not sure how we originally qualified for, or keep qualifying for, the Tree Town designation. I have a series of emails on this subject, directed to the Arbor Day Foundation and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. I either received no answers or very evasive ones over a period of six months.No one, to date, including the Ann Arbor Forestry Department, can show that such an ordinance exists. http://www.arborday.org/programs/treeCityUSA/standards.cfm?detail=2 I am no expert in this area - - just a local tax-payer and resident that has been active in the past year with local tree issues. My primary intent is not to place blame or invoke hostilities. Indeed, I think many of the current forestry staffers are doing the best they can with the resources allowed them by our budget and administrators. But, the facts are the facts - - and we must do better, and quickly.