GLENWOOD SPRINGS — Pointing to what he called the “devastation and the ruination” of dozens of trees felled behind a mobile home park along the Roaring Fork River in the past week, Mayor Bruce Christensen proposed a tree-cutting ordinance that would provide more protection for trees in the city.
Christensen asked city staff to look into an ordinance, not unlike Aspen’s, that might at least provide protection for trees along the river and other key areas by requiring city permission before cutting them down.
“We’re not asking that we have a tree police formed, but the devastation and ruination of cutting a large number of trees that were healthy is something that I would not like to see again,” Christensen said.
Management at the River Meadows mobile home park has cut down an estimated 40-50 trees, mostly cottonwoods, along the banks of the Roaring Fork since last Thursday. Managers had planned to make room for a protective berm to safeguard residents from rising waters in the case of a flood due to the above-average snowpack. City officials told them that wouldn’t be allowed due to both city regulations and Army Corps of Engineers regulations.
The cutting left behind a row of stumps along the river, while the mobile home park’s management determines what it can do to protect the residents.
Christensen’s proposal received support from Councilman Russ Arensman, whose district includes the mobile home park. Arensman called for a “middle ground” that would protect trees without creating a tree bureaucracy.
“I just think it’s a tragedy what has happened down at River Meadows trailer park, when it comes to cutting dozens, if not hundreds, of trees that did not need to be cut,” he said.
River Meadows resident Deborah Hord, who has vocally opposed the sawing down of the trees, called the cutting a “devastation ... . We need to implement laws to protect our trees, because a lot of people who are coming from out of state don’t know how important our natural resources are,” she said.
Roaring Fork Conservancy representatives said the tree-cutting made what was already an unhealthy section of river even worse, and might have decreased the bank’s stability in the event of a flood.
“There’s definitely a balance between either protecting your home or wiping out trees in the area,” said Tim O’Keefe, the conservancy’s education director, in an interview. “In this instance, we would like to see people take a more balanced approach.”
Roaring Fork Conservancy Executive Director Rick Lofaro said mobile home park representatives tried to contact his office for its recommendations, but he was out while his wife was having a baby. Within days, the trees were gone, he said.
The Glenwood case was one of about a half-dozen examples of landowners removing vegetation along the river this spring, Lofaro said. The conservancy has developed written recommendations for how to care for riverfront vegetation.
“Unfortunately, it’s usually a case of (cutting) it and asking for forgiveness, rather than going about it the right way and leaving it in,” he said.
A stream-health study conducted for the conservancy found the Roaring Fork through Glenwood Springs to be “extremely degraded” due to impacts from new subdivisions, shopping centers and roads. “Any time you remove any kind of vegetation like that, even if it’s in compromised habitat, that just makes it that much worse,” Lofaro said. “The root systems of vegetation act as a network to hold the soil together.”
Cottonwoods — even dead cottonwoods — provide important nesting habitat for songbirds and for the Lewis’ woodpecker, and act as perches for birds such as bald eagles and great blue herons, Lofaro said. They also provide important shade that keeps the cold-water ecosystem cold, he said, an important factor for gold-medal fishing designation.
Lofaro said machinery running along the banks could cause additional siltation, killing off bugs and, eventually, the fish that eat them, and creating problems that might not show up for years. “It’s more of a silent killer,” he said.
From the river’s perspective, flooding is good, Lofaro said. The high waters scour the river bottom, create new wetlands and carry seeds to spread vegetation.
Concrete structures meant to protect against flooding aren’t so healthy for the streams. For landowners who want to protect their properties, though, the health of the stream may not be their top priority.
“I definitely won’t say we should protect the environment over people’s homes,” O’Keefe said. “I think the long-term solution is proper land-use planning.”
dfrey@aspendailynews.com