~ Submitted by Donald Marshall
The Select Board just voted, unanimously, to go ahead with the North Road sidewalk/tree removal project without any conditions attached. They did, informally, concur that there will be one last chance to visit this issue when the actual contract comes up for approval.
I do not want this to be sarcastic but one of the comments was that the DPW has, and will continue to, work closely with the contractor and BARC [Bedford Arbor Resources Committee], etc., to mitigate tree removal. I may be mistaken but I believe that this project has been under discussion for at least 3 years, and perhaps longer; and I wonder what stone is left unturned. The tree may have grown a couple of inches in that time. The competing wall may have slumped a bit; but what else has changed? What new information can there be?
I would observe that the homes along this road were all purchased, like mine, without any sidewalks and, so far as I know, without any promise of sidewalks. My next-door neighbors just purchased their house, knowing that there is no sidewalk.
And what if the abutter whose property is fronted (and apparently affronted) by the pre-colonial tree, decides to move out of Bedford and sell their property? The future buyer might well be a more tree-friendly resident who would accommodate a small easement.
If there were ever a time to consider land-taking, I think this is it. A modest one or two feet, with an agreement to rebuild and improve whatever wall is presently there, doesn’t seem to be that big a deal.
I do admit that, because of mobility issues, I have not walked the site. There may be a lot more to it than I have heard so far in public discussion.
If the pre-colonial tree is cut down, perhaps someone can figure out a way that it can be cut up and distributed as name markers or some such memento. There is probably enough to go around for all the citizens of the town to have a piece of it.
Editor’s Note: Marshall is one of the founders and a former chair of the Bedford Arbor Resources Committee
Loading ...
Why trees must be saved? Trees contribute directly to the environment by providing oxygen, improving air quality, climate amelioration, conserving water, preserving soil, and supporting wildlife. During the process of photosynthesis, trees take in carbon dioxide and produce the oxygen we breathe.
Are forests the only carbon sinks on Earth? They emit more carbon than they take in. … Forests are the only carbon sinks on Earth.
Do older trees store more carbon? A sweeping study of forests around the world finds that the older the tree, the greater its potential to store carbon and slow climate change. The 38 researchers from 15 countries found that 97 percent of trees from more than 400 species studied grew more quickly as they aged, thus absorbing MORE carbon. “Even though on an individual leaf scale their productivity might be declining slightly, they just have so many more leaves that the net effect is that they’re able to fix more carbon in total than a small tree,” said Stephenson, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Western Ecological Research Center in Three Rivers, Calif.
If a typical tree’s diameter grows 10 times as large, it will undergo a hundredfold increase in leaf mass and a fiftyfold to hundredfold increase in total leaf area, the study found. This outweighs the lower rate of productivity. More than 400 species of trees from six continents were repeatedly measured, with some records dating 80 years ago. The findings were published in the pre-eminent science publication entitled Nature. The study supported findings from a 2010 study on eucalyptus and sequoia trees, which found that large trees could add up to 600 kilograms (1,300 pounds) of aboveground biomass each year, Stephenson said. The findings — that old trees not only store carbon and prevent it from escaping into the atmosphere, but actively covert CO2 in the air into their trunks, branches and leaves — make an important case for the preservation of the country’s old-growth forests.
The beautiful tree canopy which used arch over North Road is long gone with the excessive previous tree removal for sidewalks. The traffic speeds even faster now as a result. North Road is used a cut through for those coming off Route 4 and Route 3 to get to 128 so traffic stacks up for hours in the morning idling and promoting increased emissions which was taken up by those mature trees which are now long gone. This program of tree removal is NOT innocuous and contributes greatly to climate change. The excessive speeding which is quite common place on North Road is only facilitated by the canopy removal.
Has anyone watched this recent PBS program on the impact of forests and climate change? Here is a link: https://www.pbs.org/video/forest-feedback-loop-k8t1gp/ Please keep in mind that the planning board has a proposal to allow several housing programs to be built in the woodlands along Route 225 heading toward the Concord River, which will also result in the loss of MANY MORE Older & Mature trees. The town has already taken down more than 50 trees on North Road in the past 6 years all for a black paved sidewalk which is like a frying pan for humans and pets in the summer time. Last year there were temps over 90 degrees on over 25 days here in Bedford. The heat coming off those asphalt paved sidewalks is intolerable for an infant or child in a stroller for pets walking on them, let alone an adult. The excess heat off this sidewalks is further exacerbated by the removal of the mature tree’s canopy. Please please seriously rethink this.
Assuming the pre-colonial tree is in good health, one would assume that the continuing work from the DPW and BARC to see what they can do to fit the legal definitions of the sidewalk (which is absolutely needed) and save the tree. Unfortunately, if there is a choice between safety for humans in an already developed area and saving a tree, I am afraid to say I will always go for the safety for humans.
I hope there is an arrangement that can be made for both to co-exist.
North Road absolutely needs a sidewalk for safety concerns. It baffles me, however, that an alternate plan to save this valuable tree can’t be developed. I admit to being not fully informed about the specific plans but I can’t believe that a compromise couldn’t be reached. It saddens me every time I see mature trees removed in the name of development, even with replantings, which won’t mature for several generations.