Preserving Trees on Private Property a Challenge to Planning Process

The Bedford community forest master plan will be a comprehensive tool to ensure the ongoing growth of and care for thousands of public trees.

However, preserving trees on private property is a higher-level challenge.

The consultants coordinating the master plan preparation discussed their process at two public meetings, one of them virtual, earlier this month.

Urban forest planner Ashley McElhinney and project manager Moriah Day, both with the Davey Resource Group, were joined by Department of Public Works Director David Manugian, who also chairs the ad hoc tree master plan committee.

They talked in detail about inventorying public trees, encouraging community engagement, and developing recommendations and policies.

But at the Zoom webinar, during the question period that followed, a Fox Run Road resident said, “We have seen properties clear-cut and houses put in, and it has just changed the whole warmth of the street. There must be some way” to mitigate this. McElhinney said this is “a recurrent theme.”

And Bobbi Tornheim, a member of the Arbor Resources Committee, followed up with the thought that it takes “political clout” to deal with private contractors. 

“What action items are there?” she wondered. “What are things we can do now?”

Day acknowledged “concerns about tree removal on private as well as public property.” She said one of the study’s recommendations “might be some form of regulation of tree removal on private property. There are ways to do that. It’s definitely something that we will be looking into more as we go through this.”

“A lot of people are hesitant” to support laws regulating trees on private property, McElhinney acknowledged. Meanwhile, residents can check to make sure contractors are properly licensed and are abstaining from removing public trees, which are protected by local and state law.

The tree master plan, Day explained, will serve as “the guiding document for Bedford to develop a unified community vision for the future of the community forest.” It will “help maximize the benefits trees are providing” by including guidance on growth, management and maintenance, and assessment of resources needed.

The firm’s definition of “community forest” includes privately-owned trees as well as those in the public right-of-way, which isn’t always defined by sidewalks.

One of the most important goals is “to ensure that trees are considered early in the municipal planning process,” so they have a voice equal to other amenities like bicycle lanes and sidewalks, the project manager continued. This will be “making sure we give trees a seat at the table early in the process.”

Program review has begun through discussions with the town tree warden and review of current tree-protection policies, as well as how “specific operations metrics” compare to those in similarly-sized towns.

The consultants are also meeting with the ad hoc master plan committee, which represents a range of constituencies. 

“We are hoping they bring us lots of different perspectives and speak for different interests.” Together they are “developing a vision plan, identifying stakeholders, and getting the word out.” 

The study’s initial phase is defined greatly by the public tree inventory, abetted by last year’s aerial pavement management survey that tangentially collected photos of street trees. That will be augmented by ground-level surveying in parks, cemeteries, and other public grounds beginning in July. Day said the firm is using “Treekeeper, an inventory management program that allows tree managers to visualize their area, assign work orders, and track work that has been done.”

Review and analysis of the inventory and existing documents comprise the second phase of the planning process.  

This will be followed by a step McElhinney called “how do we get from where we are to where we want to be?” Community engagement is a central component of this effort, she said. “We want to engage with as many community members as possible and understand community concerns, priorities and questions.” 

There have been almost 250 responses to the survey posted on the master plan web page. McElhinney said the survey takes less than 10 minutes to complete.

“Everyone in the community is a stakeholder, but we will be interviewing specific organizations and town departments,” she noted. 

In September, after presentation of inventory data, there will be more opportunities for feedback and questions, she continued. Then the firm will develop the actual plan, including themes, recommendations, priorities, strategies, and action items, aiming for completion by Dec. 31. 

Others commenting during the webinar included resident Deborah Roberts, who noted that “in some neighborhoods we are losing the canopy to development. Can this help?” 

Manugian’s response focused on prioritizing public trees alongside “all the other public infrastructure, so there can be a management plan focusing on species diversity, places where trees could be planted over several years.”

Sue Swanson expressed specific concern about the vulnerability of beech trees such as those in the Old Reservoir conservation area off Shawsheen Road. 

“I hope the master plan will have some sort of formal policy about dealing with diseases,” she said. 

Swanson added that “tree canopy is so critical to any plan we adopt to address climate change. It is really important to formalize in the plan that saplings are not the same as mature trees and we really need to protect the mature tree canopy.”

Karen Kalil-Brown, who represents the Historic District Commission on the master plan committee, urged that the process “better define what we want to do so we can measure our progress.”

Molly Haskell, chair of the Arbor Resources Committee, noted that the municipal tree protection bylaw “puts teeth into penalties for illegal removal. I would love it if this process went into heavy penalties for people taking down street trees.”