Advocates Intervene to Halt Pepco Tree Removal on Rustic Roads

Preservation advocates, a county council member’s chief of staff and Pepco representatives gathered on Budd Road in Poolesville last Thursday to ponder the fate of a tree. The tall, lush tree was just one of the hundreds of trees in the Agricultural Reserve that was marked by Pepco last week for removal.

“The right side [of the two-trunk tree] is dying back,” Daniel Landry, senior staff forester for Pepco said about the tree that was on the opposite side of the road of a power line. “We have a four-year trimming cycle, and that tree looks like it will be dead in two years.”

But, several of those gathered on Thursday disagreed that the tree, and several others like it nearby, had the potential to impact a power line in the next several years.

“I disagree with that assessment that that tree is in decline,” said Dolores Milmoe of the Audubon Naturalist Society. “I don’t think it would be a hazard in the next four years.”

In recent weeks, Pepco has begun a more aggressive tree trimming schedule throughout the county, targeting specific tree species, trees that are not yet dead and trees on opposite sides of the road from power lines, following stepped up pressure from the and are not met. Last week Pepco crews began cutting down dozens of trees along roads in the Agricultural Reserve, many of which are designated as rustic.

Rustic Roads and Tree Removal

In the Montgomery County Rustic Roads Master Plan, more than 50 roads are designated as rustic, which is defined as "roads in the Agricultural Reserve or rural parts of Montgomery County that exemplify the rural and agricultural character of the area.”

In addition, certain roads, including parts of River Road and Montevido Road, are labeled as “exceptional rustic roads,” defined by the Park and Planning Department as “roads that have such unusual and pleasing character that preservation of the road is highly desirable.”

Most of the rustic roads are not dedicated right-of-ways and do not fall under the Montgomery County Department of Transportation's purview. According to Leslie Saville, a senior planner for area 3 and the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission representative to the Rustic Roads Advisory Committee, only when a developer is applying for a subdivision of the roadway is the protections of the master plan implemented. However, she said, Pepco had been consulting with the park and planning department's rustic roads coordinator. But the coordinator retired several months ago and Pepco never followed up with anyone else in the department.

"When they stopped hearing from her, they stopped abiding by the master plan," Saville told Patch.

Pepco Public Affairs Manager Charles Washington said Pepco foresters currently follow a three-step process in determining whether a tree should be removed, which includes getting permission from private landowners or working with a county or state arborist, depending on where the tree is located.

The particular tree that the group gathered around on Thursday is on the edge of privately owned agricultural land. Landowner Robert Jamison told Patch he was contacted by Pepco to request the tree removal.

“Pepco called me and asked if they could come on my property to do some tree management,” Jamison said. “I told them, 'You do whatever you want to do; you have free reign to go and do whatever you want to do that is in the bounds of law.'”

But, Brett Linkletter, chief of the tree maintenance section of the Montgomery County Department of Transportation, said trees that fall within the 30-foot perscriptive roadway, a road that has not been dedicated, is within his office's jurisdiction. In that case, he said, his office would need to be consulted about a tree removal. The trees marked on Budd Road fall within 15 feet from the center of the road.

“If that was the case, I’m sure Pepco would let me know,” he said.

Reliability vs. Aesthetic

Caroline Taylor, executive director of the Montgomery Countryside Alliance, said she worries that in removing trees that are not yet dead or dying, Pepco is disturbing county preservation efforts.

“Pepco has an obligation not only to deliver reliable power, but also to observe the preservation goals of the county, they can provide for reliable service and provide conservation at the same time,” Taylor said.

Washington said Pepco's removal plan had included targeting of specific types of trees.

“There are certain types of trees that aren’t necessarily compatible with utility lines,” noted Washington.

Although Patch requested the exact number of trees that were removed in the area prior to Thursday morning, Pepco did not respond.

Last week, the Montgomery Countryside Alliance wrote a letter to the Park and Planning Committee protesting Pepco's recent tree removals.

"The tree cutting currently under way is in no way sensitive to and in direct conflict with the Rural and Rustic Roadways master plan. Live trees, in good health and not threatening the wires are being felled on both sides of roadways," the group stated in the letter. "The aggressive nature of the line clearing has removed full tree canopy to an extent that alters the roadway vista and character."

According to the Master Plan, "trees and vegetation that grow close to the road without shoulders" are listed as a significant feature to be protected along Budd Road. Advocates argue Pepco's planned tree removal would destroy that feature.

“This rustic road is beautiful because of a mature tree canopy, and we are now at risk of losing it,” Taylor said.

On Thursday, Washington told the gathered group he would coordinate a meeting with Pepco and interested parties.

“We know there needs to be a balance between trimming for reliability and esthetics,” Washington said. "I am willing to meet with this group, and hold off the removal of trees until we can hold that meeting."

In the meantime Pepco crews will continue to trim trees and to remove trees deemed as hazardous.