A group of Happy Valley residents came up with an interesting name for their plan to promote trees and natural drainage in their neighborhood.

They call it a “Green Infrastructure Plan.”

Not very glamorous for something as poetically beautiful as a tree, but it makes sense.

In these days of tight city budgets, a nuts-and-bolts approach is the best way to curry favor for the idea of urban forests.

But you’d be going out on a limb to think the proposal will be adopted soon. City planners say they’re booked solid this year, and say next year’s schedule is filling up fast.

Sheilagh Brown, one of several residents to work on the proposal, said they will run the plan by city officials and other neighborhoods for review before seeking formal approval as a change to Happy Valley’s neighborhood plan.

“We want to get it on the table, and do it,” she said.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the idea of urban forestry blossoms citywide. It’s too good and too important to take root in just one neighborhood.

Trees please the eye and calm the soul, and they do a whole lot more.

They cleanse the air. They provide shade in the summer and windbreaks when it’s blustery. Trees and the soil beneath them ease rainfall back into the ground, filtering it along the way.

A 1998 study of tree loss in Puget Sound — from Everett to Tacoma, Seattle to Bellevue — estimated it would cost $2.5 billion to offset the environmental value of those long-gone trees.

The Happy Valley plan calls for more trees along streets, in traffic circles, near streams, and next to the freeway.

It calls for a “heritage tree” program to save ones noteworthy for their size, age, rarity, beauty or historic significance, and it encourages property owners to save and plant trees and to uproot invasive plants.

The plan also sets of the goal of having 25 to 50 percent of residential land in Happy Valley under tree canopy.

American Forests, a national nonprofit group, recommends 40 percent canopy coverage for Northwest cities, on average, with more coverage in residential suburbs and less in urban residential and central business areas.

Coming up with new and effective ways to increase the number of trees in Bellingham will take time. A heavy dose of regulations could cause resentment, but some new land-use incentives, a dash of cash, and lots of volunteer help might be a good start.

Computer mapping and satellite imagery make it easier these days to track tree coverage in a city. What if Bellingham adopts a citywide target for its tree canopy, then measures progress toward that goal?

Seattle, with 18 percent tree coverage hopes to reach 30 percent over the next three decades.

Can Bellingham do better?