Watershed board gives go-ahead to plan to cut down hundreds of trees in Plymouth

  • Article by: Tom Meersman , Star Tribune
  • Updated: September 19, 2013 - 8:36 PM

Watershed board must still give its “final-final” approval and says quality of nearby lake is at stake. Neighbors plead for options other than losing nearly 1,000 beloved trees.

  • 7
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 7 of 7
hobie2Sep. 19, 13 5:15 PM

"Asche said the mature forest has shaded most ground cover, so too much bare soil on the forest floor and channel is eroding"... I might suggest he get out into the mature forest and observe the deer herd browsing the plants under the canopy down to the roots... A mature forest does not have bare soil - it has mats of needles if coniferous, and seedlings and shrub and brambles in deciduous forest. It's not pasture. Go to the hardwood forests of SE MN - the soil in those mature forests is NOT bare - you can't even walk through some of it for the ground cover... Mature forest soil is bared by too many browsing animals (deer) and rooting animals (pigs)... Bare soil in mature deciduous forest in the upper midwest is almost always from too many deer for the available browse.

7
2
tmauelSep. 19, 13 6:16 PM

Why don't they reduce the phosphorous in the water shed first? The holding pond and 30 feet of edge will only absorb so much phosphorous before the holding pond will become saturated and at great cost need to be dug up again. Then where will that phosphorous saturated soil be taken? The street sweeping, homeowner education to reduce the 75% of phosphorous from other sources should be accomplished first and the tree removal part modified.

9
0
teddygSep. 19, 13 8:00 PM

Why not start by cleaning up all the downed trees and the garbage along the creek downstream to where it disappears. This is just another typical MN park board that wants to spend lots of money to do big things - like cut down a thousand trees - yet doesnt want to be bothered with the little things to maintain creek integrity.

3
1
morenews0013Sep. 19, 13 8:41 PM

I'm always interested that people can live in Plymouth and be surprised everytime the city supports the removal of natural growing mature trees. People, Plymouth has a profoundly terrible history of bulldozing mature trees.We have watched them do this since 1978, and it never gets better. Seriously doubt you can find a worse suburb for this. Of course they chose the option that takes down trees; that is always the choice that Plymouth makes.

5
1
rogerbSep. 20, 1312:21 AM

I'm missing something here. How in the world will removing trees decrease phosphorous? If the phosphorous is from the leaves that fall, I would think that is what nature intended. If it's from lawn fertilizer and grass clippings, then let's address those sources.

5
0
pondguySep. 20, 13 2:36 PM

What engineering firm got the contract? Are they going to rip-rap the stream too? Make it a concrete drainage ditch? OK so if shade is an issue- trim some trees or PLANT shade tolerant perennials. If you can't get equipment in there then cut a couple of trees. But why clear cut? A big spring melt/rain could totally undue the stream remaindering project. There has got to be a way to work with nature here, but these large engineering companies don't have a clue

1
0
rambler89Sep. 21, 13 9:30 AM

As morenews0013 notes, Plymouth takes every opportunity to remove trees, on the slightest excuse or none. Sometimes they're cut down wholesale, sometimes gradually, a few at a time, but with real losses over a few years. This is true in Plymouth Creek Park, where trees removed in the area just southeast of the Ice Center were replaced by solid buckthorn. The clear tendency in that park seems to be deforestation of all areas near marshlands. Another tendency seems to be the clearing of "unsightly" underbrush--the sort of growth that helps stop erosion in sensitive areas. Between this city policy, devlopment, and losses of large trees to new diseases and the natural life cycle, this needs to be made an issue. (Another issue: the fewer disturbed areas, the less ragweed, poison ivy, and invasive species generally.)

1
0
  • 1 - 7 of 7

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT