New York Times Suggests Atlanta’s Tree Canopy is “Threatened”
Decatur Metro | July 24, 2011The New York Times recently wrote an article on trees falling around Atlanta recently and somehow determined that the city’s unofficial nickname “The City in the Forest” (not to be confused with Cleveland’s “The Forest City”) is in jeopardy. Though the article itself gives nothing more than anecdotal evidence of it.
“We’re in emergency mode,” Mr. [city arborist Jasen] Johns said. “I’ve never seen this many down trees.”
OK. More trees than Mr. Johns has ever seen? That’s not so great. But does Mr. Johns have any hard numbers? Have they calculated the loss rate to be outside of norms? That the city will soon be a sunny wasteland of parking lots and clear-cut subdivisions?
The city does not track the number of lost trees. But everywhere from the Georgia Forestry Commission to the telephone companies that send out repair crews, Atlantans are noticing gaps in the canopy.
And not only are they noticing, but some are calling it a “Treepocolypse”!
Ok, so we all are aware that trees eventually die, aren’t we? I don’t mean to belittle the admirable work of many tree-lovers the city over. My problem is this article, and that it doesn’t base its rather dramatic titling on anything other than casual observation.
If you want to prove a threatened tree canopy, give me something that shows that there’s a huge gap between old growth and new growth. Or something about how new growth just won’t cut it 100 years from now. Anything that actually shows a vanishing canopy due to recent tree falls!
But whatever. I guess anything that talks about Atlanta’s “identity” and doesn’t mention the words “Hotlanta” or “Southern Nights” might just be a good thing.
When I saw the title of this post, I assumed it was going to be about how developments of new cookie-cutter McMansions were destroying the semi-tropical forest. Not tree falls. Tree falls seem a gradual, natural process that ought not destroy the natural canopy as long as we don’t pave over where the trees once stood. Unless there’s a hurricane that sweeps through and destroys acres and acres of trees, e.g. the hurricane that destroyed the beautiful canopy of trees that used to arch over the roads in Sanibel Island. Or a fire like they get out west.
Is it the case that it’s just a lot of older trees that are reaching the end of their natural lifetime because they were all planted around the same time, say, the ’20s and ’30s? They’re not saying it’s because of smog or acid rain or Thneed production?
But even intown, you’ve certainly noticed that there are fewer trees than 20 years ago. There’s much more development. I don’t think, for example, that the people who built what was then the A&P shopping center at Clairmont & N Decatur Rd replanted — and made sure they lived for a few years — and equal number of the kinds of trees that were in that plot of land before it was raised.
Does anyone know what the rules are on replanting trees in Decatur when they are felled for development?
I do agree that the number of trees down now doesn’t seem as many as when tornados have come through in the past or after some other droughts. But my garage caught a HUGE limb from an old water oak a few weeks ago.
Meant to say “an” instead of “and”
11Alive did a piece on this story and our own Oakhurst resident Greg Levine, Trees Atlanta Program Manager, got to comment a couple of times on the situation. What I learned … Seems in the 1920′s the planting of Water Oaks was popular but their life span is shorter than some other kinds of oaks. Many of those are reaching the end and experience trunk rot, etc. Maintaining wide planting areas as roads/parking are added or improved is important as is continuing to plant trees from a broad spectrum and those with longer life spans.
clip is after the ad.
http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=198605
i lived in a few places in Atlanta up to 10 years ago. I recently was trying to locate my old apartment near Emory when I took a look at the Google Satellite View — holy cow, i never saw so many parking lots. I certainly don’t remember the place looking like that. My buddy said, “The area has changed A LOT. A LOT.”
not sure what, if anything, that has to do with trees dying from ‘natural/non-construction’ causes, but it did surprise/shock me.
The Georgia Urban Forestry Council has their offices in Decatur.(their web site even has a picture of d’town Decatur on it)
http://www.gufc.org/
They have a wealth of information for communities and homeowners on keeping trees healthy, and a canopy above our heads.
I will say this…If one looks at old photos from the late 19th century, to the early 20th century of Dekalb & Decatur, one does not see many trees. The area was largely agricultural for the most part. Much of the land had been cleared.
The practice of mono culture tree plantings began then, American Elms, Chestnuts, shorter lived water oaks, etc. and the area’s natural predisposition to go back to a hardwood forest environment took hold again as farming declined in the urbanizing county over the last 80 years or so.
My point is, we influence what is above our heads, and we can make sure the trees stay there.
A good step for Decatur would be to look at a better tree ordinance that matches the community desire for a canopy with sound development and planting practices that encourage long lived diversity.
A baseline tree inventory would be a great first step. Each homeowner could submit the number and species of trees on their property over a certain diameter.
I really don’t see a tree ordinance on the city’s web site. There is a Greenspace Commision, but it doesn’t seem by a quick reading to be occupied with trees as a focal point, though it certainly would be part of what they do.
Anyone else know more about this?
Yes, we have much more canopy now than in the 50s. The canopy probably peaked in the late 80s. Most trees were planted or left to maintain shade in a pre AC world. Those trees are now declining. The City does have a Tree Ordinance that has been on the books since the late 90s. An updated ordinance is now on the table as is an urban forestry management plan. The timing of an urban forestry management plan could not be better giving the recent decrease in canopy and increase in tree failure.
Plant a tree as soon as this vicious heat wave passes. When I see little tree seedlings of the right types, I put them in a bucket to “grow a little” before planting them in a good place. The shady streets and homes of Atlanta are beautiful, but maintenance and replanting are needed. Developers who need to pave large areas should be required to include replacement trees in their designs before approval is granted.
What I got from reading the NYT article last week was that some people think we’re experiencing more tree loss than usual, for a variety of reasons. One is that a generation of trees has reached the end of their lifespan. Another is that many mature trees have been weakened by repeated and sustained droughts, making them mores susceptible to disease and also more likely to get knocked over in heavy weather. Also that the metro area would be a lot less green than it is, were it not for Trees Atlanta and the City of Atlanta’s tree ordinance.
I believe it’s the case that Decatur does not have a tree ordinance. That means a developer can clear-cut a lot at will (unless they run into other constraints, such as those having to do with stream buffers). I don’t understand why this is the case and would be very interested to know whether Decatur has ever formally considered adopting a tree ordinance; if so, what was the substance of the surrounding discussion; if not, why?
Decatur has several sections of City Code that deal with preservation of trees. A developer cannot “clear-cut at will”. Here are a couple:
http://library.municode.com/showDocumentFrame.aspx?clientID=12110&docID=16
http://library.municode.com/showDocumentFrame.aspx?clientID=12110&docID=18
Steve’s links seem broken, but here’s a DM post from 2008 reporting on the City Commission’s adoption of a stronger tree ordinance. http://www.decaturmetro.com/2008/05/19/new-tree-ordinance-goes-before-commission-tonight/
Of course the link in that post to the city’s website is also broken due to the site redesign…
Did it pass back in 2008? I couldn’t find it on the city’s webs site.
I’d be pretty certain it passed. The redesign of the website eliminated online access to minutes prior to about a year ago. You could ask Amanda Thompson.
……Third Assessment conclude that ….. of climate change and agriculture, and finds that the Southeast’s forests and agricultural lands may be transformed into a savanna and grassland due to warming and drying, …
http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/tg/guide_glue.jsp?ds=7&rd=lu
Now get in your SUV and DRIVE!
Can’t grow organic vegetables with dense tree cover or without plentiful sunshine. What a dilemma for a Decaturite.
Or install solar panels.
True that.
What could be …
Take a look at the Treescape album from The Cool Hunter (on the Facebook page).
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150218398412463.347371.108605392462&type=1
Pink trees? Now that would be cool!
Take the right chemicals, you can see all the pink trees you want!
I’m a lumberjack and I’m okay
I sleep all night and I work all day
He’s a lumberjack and he’s okay
He sleeps all night and he works all day
I cut down trees, I eat my lunch
I go to the lavatory
On Wednesdays I go shopping
And have buttered scones for tea
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got
‘Til it’s gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot
Old trees are big trees here. They get old and die. Keep planting trees wherever.
Mulch volcanoes are bad, mmmkay.