The “Pelham Parkway 87” are mature trees, primarily lindens, with some elms and oaks, who have the misfortune of living too close to a “road improvement”, as the $36 million reconstruction of the two-mile long roadway is euphemistically called. Not enough is being done by the city to preserve these historic trees.

Our efforts to identify the best way to save the Pelham Parkway 87 have been frustrated by the fact that the project falls under the auspices of three different city agencies, each more ready than the last to pass the buck.

The project is funded by the Department of Transportation’s capital program, designed and built by the Department of Design and Construction and lies on land mapped as city parkland under the jurisdiction and protection of the Department of Parks & Recreation.

When we called DOT to inquire about the removal of the trees, we were told that DDC was in charge of the project. When we called DDC, we were told that the trees were on Park land. When we called Parks, we were told that the reconstruction had been initiated by DOT. This round robin of avoiding accountability would be comedic if it didn’t involve the destruction of trees that are older than most people.

It also appears that no environmental assessment was ever performed on this project. According to the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) procedure, the lead agency of any city project should perform such an analysis when it would lead to “the removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation or fauna” or “the impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological, architectural or aesthetic resources (including the demolition or alteration of a structure which is eligible for inclusion in an official inventory of such resources).”

Clearly 87 mature trees constitute a large quantity of vegetation. Additionally, according to a 2006 report published by the city’s Department of City Planning, Pelham Parkway is eligible for listing on the State or National Register of Historic Places. It seems apparent that a formal review of the impact of removing these trees should have been done.

Under current plans, the 87 will become sawdust next year as construction proceeds. Some city employees have belittled the prospects of the trees claiming that many of them are dead – although some of the alleged dead are still in leaf. We have no problem with the removal of dead trees, Pelham Parkway was not intended to become a petrified forest. We do, however, take issue with the removal of older trees that still have years of shade to provide.

By preliminary observation, the important distinction is between when a tree is “declared dead” and when a tree is actually dead. With humans, that moment is usually when the heart stops beating. With trees, which are much larger and sometimes older than people, there are many specimens which are half-dead, more or less. Some tree trunks are hollowed out to a greater or lesser degree. The rate and the amount of decay vary from tree to tree, as well as their estimated life expectancy.

There is a risk of a dead or near-dead tree toppling, killing or injuring those unfortunate enough to be below its canopy at the critical moment. Several tragedies of this sort occurred this year in Central Park, an area where the trees are particularly well maintained. The appearance of a tree may be deceptive, some look healthy but their trunks and branches may have internal decay.

New trees that are planted are generally saplings (trees with less than 4 inches DBH – diameters at breast height). They will require decades to grow to a size where they produce significant shade. Young trees are also subject to the deleterious effects of pollution from automobile exhaust from the adjacent roadway. New trees will be planted by the hundreds, but many, victims of human vandalism, dog urine, automobile scrapes or droughts, are not likely to grow to healthy maturity.

The Basal Area Replacement Formula, which I introduced while Parks Commissioner, provides for a sufficient number of smaller trees to replace larger ones which are necessarily removed. It is not easy, however, to secure compliance with the formula, which basically calls for wood for wood replacement of old trees with new ones. The previous standard, caliper replacement, would allow four 3 inch diameter trees to replace one 12 inch diameter tree. BARF, in this case, would require four times as many trees as the caliper rule. Before that, it was tree for tree, which meant in effect that a toothpick could replace a redwood.

Guardians of the urban forest must be vigilant to prevent its depredation. Whether greedy entrepreneurs or misguided civil servants threaten trees, the words of George Pope Morris (1802-64) come to mind:

“Woodman, spare that tree!
Touch not a single bough!
In youth it sheltered me,
And I’ll protect it now.”

A review of the health and safety of each potentially affected tree should be performed, with an eye to preserving as many of as possible. Then the design of the project should be altered to save as many of these healthy trees as can be preserved.

Mr. Stern, a frequent contributor to the Sun, is president of New York Civic.