How can we protect our crucial ‘urban forest’ when we don’t know why trees are cut down?
About 200 mature trees are to due to be cut down at a single development site in the Cambridge Highlands. (Photo: Katya Guseva via Pixabay)
Our city’s definitive study reported a 7 percent tree canopy loss from 2009 to 2014, in sharp contrast with what one would take as an increase when reading our city’s website and planting committee minutes. This increase was actually only an estimate; only for city-owned trees; and only for the number of baby trees planted – not for the canopy provided by mature trees.
Now our city jeopardizes the work of yet another task force as it continues to not look at all available data.
The city’s consultants will report some initial data Thursday to the Urban Forest Master Plan Task Force. What will not be included are the hundreds of mature trees cut down just this year and the hundreds more planned to be cut down.
This April, 50 trees were cut down in North Cambridge alone in 10 days, while hundreds were cut down along rail lines over the year. Previously, 90 were cut down for the Jefferson Park redevelopment and 32 for Harvard’s student center redevelopment. While spread out in time, these are large numbers considering the canopy protecting us from climate change comes from mature trees.
Already-planned developments show an equally grim tree future: about 200 mature trees are to be cut down to build hundreds of rental apartments at 55 Wheeler St. in the Cambridge Highlands, on the site of the former Abt Associates. Another 190 mature trees at Volpe in Kendall Square are to be cut down by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for its redevelopment. For Vecna on Cambridgepark Drive, 16 mature trees will be cut down – a number that looks small only by comparison. There are many more such examples.
Our mayor’s staff proposed that “pro-tree is an anti-development ploy.” Even if this were true, why should losing trees to development be ignored during the process of creating a plan to save our tree canopy for its public health benefits?
Our city arborist already has a lot of tree cutting data. By law, the arborist reviewed the tree plan for every large development for the past 14 years. Every tree removal using a crane or blocking the public way requires a permit from the Department of Public Works. These companies can be asked how many trees they cut down and the reason why. The department itself removes many trees, and for them the department already has the detailed information that can help planning – including not only the number of trees it cut down, but also the kind, size, environment and, most importantly, the reason. (And for dead trees, sometimes why they died.) Our city also has many building plans on file with before-and-after landscape plans, especially for projects going to the Board of Zoning Appeal. Finally, institutions such as Harvard and MIT surely have records going far back in time that may help us plan for our already changed climate.
To be sure, aerial studies show all tree losses. But to consider policy thoughtfully, perhaps following the lead of communities that control cutting down trees on private property, we must understand why trees are cut down. The paper trail required to tell us exists in city and other records. The task force needs to add a review of these records to do its job properly.
Comments to the task force can be emailed to [email protected]
Resident Charles Teague has advocated successfully for the North Cambridge Linear Park, getting restitution park trees for those cut down by W.R. Grace and working with developers to improve their park boundaries. Email [email protected].
The Cambridge City Council, with the very loud silence of Mr. Teague, is fighting to destroy 56 mostly excellent trees at Magazine Beach.
Their initial vote for destruction came on April 24, 2017, immediately following a rally by City Councilors on City Hall steps loudly proclaiming their environmental sainthood.
The magic words were “dead or dying.”
On June 6, 2017. I filed a 51 page response debunking the “dead or dying” nonsense.
The response includes more than 100 graphics, a complete photo analysis and a detailed response to both plans on public record, including nonsensical allegations by the destructive Dept. of Cons & Recreation.
That analysis is posted at http//focrwg.com/agenda1.html.
Multiple updates have followed including my objection to the destruction of 2 street trees which MicroCenter had been lovingly caring for.
Most recently, the City Council took two SECRET votes to make things worse..
The first was a vote on “renovations” to the 19th Century boat dock which Cambridge and the DCR made useless by blocking by a “bridge” which prevented access. We have found what appear to be real plans. The “bridge” still prevents access but they are making it even harder for the 37 year resident Charles River White Geese to access their food of most of the last 37 years.
The most recent vote called for a committee to be formed, specifying people who succeeded in the destruction of hundreds of trees east of the BU Bridge. The committee, USING THEIR CODE WORDS, is to decide if more destruction should be done, IN ADDITION TO the 56 doomed and mostly excellent trees.
All votes have been unanimous.
The City Council has stopped saying “dead or dying.” Now they say they are doing it because they like the woman who is fighting for the destruction, keeping silent about the destructive parts.
I oppose both items of destruction. I opposed the government destruction on the Cambridge Common and at Alewife.
Where does the writer stand on the latest GOVERNMENTAL destruction? It could be imminent. The councilors certainly sounded like it was.
I love trees. I also love living in Cambridge. Why can’t we do both?
There is a housing CRISIS in Cambridge and Boston. Denser living is greener living. Housing advocates are environmentalist. Its a false equivalency to say housing and trees can’t coexist.
While the writer is loath to be consider “anti-development” he provides no goals going forward that are pro-tree and pro- solving the housing crisis.
I am pro development and pro tree. New, older growth, and replacement trees are all easy asks.
I can make room in an agenda that solves the housing crisis for saving trees. If you can’t make room in a pro-tree agenda for helping people not be displaced… where do even start a dialogue?