I do not understand the rush to cut down the elm trees downtown when there is no work planned in that area for next summer. The elms are currently scheduled to be cut down next month. Work on that area of the highway by MPCA and MnDOT is not scheduled to begin until summer of 2021. Even if it is determined by the city that their bike path, benches, utility work and contaminated soil cleanup is more important than all these elm trees provide, we could at least enjoy them for one more year.
Many people, both residents and visitors alike, have expressed their concerns about the cutting of these elms. At the very least, it would seem logical and prudent to delay the cutting of these trees at least until next year. This is especially true when one considers that the project design was carried out under the assumption that these trees were all in poor health and that this assumption may have been faulty.
One professional with experience in urban and boulevard shade trees had done an evaluation over a year and a half ago at the request of a number of people who questioned the MnDOT evaluation. His analysis appeared to contradict much of the MnDOT evaluation. He stated that most of the trees were in better health than what MnDOT claimed and listed three as in very good condition. He even went so far as to mention the beauty of one specific tree.
While the writer of this second analysis had his reasons for not wanting to go public, his evaluation was made available to the city administrator and the mayor. He suggested that another independent professional be contacted to do an “official” evaluation of the trees.
And yet, it appears the mayor did nothing with this information. He may not even have shared it with other council members or the appointed design committee. MnDOT has stated that it was not shared with them and they only recently heard about it. This was all before the now-contracted work had even had its design finalized or approved.
The mayor and city administrator did not make this information public, nor did they request another official independent analysis of the elms’ health. Why was that? At least two retired foresters from the Grand Marais area have inspected the elm trees and have found that they are, for the most part, in good health.
There appears to never have been any design alternative considered that would retain these trees. Instead, this whole project seems to have proceeded with an initial assumption that the trees would be removed.
In recent communications with MPCA, we were informed that should they conduct the soil remediation work they have proposed, only three trees on the south side of the road would need to be removed. The old “Cobblestone” elm on the north would not be affected. And to clarify, the contaminated soil under Grand Marais is not classified as a “Superfund” site. While I admit I have not fully researched the justification for the remediation plan, I do know that there is contaminated soil under most urban areas throughout the country, especially near roads, parking lots and certain businesses such as old gas stations.
Over a year ago MnDOT and the mayor told us that all three elms on the north would be retained. We then recently found out that the Cobblestone elm was now scheduled to be removed. Recent communications with MnDOT suggest that this elm is to be removed to replace a water line and install a fire hydrant and park bench. Upon further questioning they say that while these “improvements” could be moved, including rerouting the waterline, it might affect a portion of the old stone wall and possibly require further access of right of way and, therefore, is not feasible at this time. It seems to some of us that this change actually could be accomplished though they do not want to do it, as it would be “harder” to do.
At the last meeting where this was all brought up we were told that even though this project has been “finalized” and the contracts have been awarded things could still technically be changed but that it would be “hard.” Oftentimes doing the right thing in life is hard but that does not mean you don’t try. Or does it now? It sure wasn’t hard for the city to approve this project once they found out that the cost has nearly doubled.
Those of us questioning the current design and removal of these beautiful trees have been told by the mayor and his allies that we should have participated in the process earlier. This implies that we did not. And yet saving the elm trees was actually brought up as a concern in the first visualization workshop/meeting when this all began. Then, over a year and a half ago, we questioned all of this at a public meeting. We asked that some alternative to the proposed design be evaluated and submitted that would save more of these trees. This was before the design was finalized and approved. It was never done.
As recently as this summer, many people, both residents and visitors alike, still did not realize that this project involved cutting down the majority of these elm trees.
We already have lost the magnificent old “library elm” even though contrary to much misinformation at the time this beautiful old tree was for the most part healthy. In a letter to the editor at that time the library board did finally acknowledge that elm was free of Dutch Elm Disease. That used to be a beautiful spot to sit and read under that old magnificent tree. It had a peaceful and meditative quality about it. Now we have an empty indoor sitting room and outside a nearly barren landscape with no shade, except for a sculpture on a pole and one small scraggly tree that could take over a century to offer what the elm provided.
Most of the American elm trees throughout the country have succumbed to the devastating Dutch Elm Disease and yet these elms have escaped it. It would seem that this fact alone should have warranted special consideration for these trees when the design of this project was commenced.
Has Dutch Elm Disease not made it to Cook County? Have we just been lucky? Or, more importantly, do these trees have some natural resistance that could make them even more valuable to the specie’s future as a whole? I guess we may never know if things proceed as planned. Most cities and towns would love to have such trees lining their roads and lament the loss they have suffered.
In the late ’90s, through the efforts of a local forester, Grand Marais was given the cherished status of Arbor Day Foundation “Tree City USA.” Somewhere along the way we lost that status. I always wondered why that was.
I understand the rationale of upgrading the pavement and utilities of this section of road, while providing safe pedestrian and cyclist access. However, it still seems that these only older shade trees along the highway through town should have been given more consideration in the design process. In any endeavor in life, the first thing one should consider is to “do no harm.”
Concerning the addition of a 12-foot-wide stretch of pavement for a bike/pedestrian path for safety reasons, it would be interesting to know the statistics of how many pedestrian/cyclist injuries or deaths have occurred on this short stretch of road over all the years these trees have stood. It seems that, with some creative thought, that the safety objective may have been met while still retaining these trees which add so much to an otherwise treeless stretch of highway through town. But then again, that would not have been the easiest solution and may have been “harder” to do.
If you are unsatisfied with the prospect of losing these trees and all they provide a few short weeks from now I please ask that you express yourself at the city council meeting this coming Wednesday, October 9 at 6:30 p.m. At least call city representatives and make your views known. The alternative is more pavement and signage instead of these old canopy shade trees. It really is not that hard and will not take too much of your time.
I think that I shall never see
A poem as lovely as a tree. Joyce Kilmer
Leave a Reply