JUNE 2, 1997
A different theory about why tree was removed
In response to Paul Jensen's letter (May 26) explaining why the big cottonwood was removed from JB Instant Lawn's north field:
I am not sure if you realize that the cottonwood tree removed was an eagle-roosting tree. Up to four eagles have been observed using the tree at the same time, and until it was removed, it was used by eagles that are year-round residents in our area.
I find it interesting to discover the tree was unhealthy because of drainage problems. The area of ponding of concern was over 200 feet from the tree. How was the tree affected? The swale that had the ponding still exists. Watch--during the winter, the ponding will still be there.
The bulldozer doing the work was working from the southeast end of the field moving soil toward the swale. Removal of the tree did not create more soil to be moved into the swale. Removal of the tree just required more soil from the field.
If the tree was a safety hazard for employees, why did it not lose branches during our big storms this past winter? If it was a safety hazard, why did the removal operation not begin until 7 p.m. on a Friday night with no one around but the dozer operator? It must not have been a hazard to fall down, since the operator had to dig deep enough around the tree that the top of the dozer was almost below ground level before he could push the tree over.
As you may guess, I have a different theory of why the tree was removed.
Robert Newman, Woodinville