Replanting Trees

camps · Post by **camps** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:54 am

I have a question. I was talking with my parents and my in-laws who moved here from Minnesota and Missouri, respectively, and both states have a law that states when developing land, when you take out mature trees, you must replant 1 substantially sized tree for each tree you remove. Apparently this is not the case here in Nebraska, as nearly every time land is developed it appears they just rip out trees and don't replant many in their place. This just makes me sick to my stomach sometimes, seeing all the nice trees around town just being ripped down in the name of urban sprawl.

Does anyone know if there is or every was a law like this in Nebraska?

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:56 am

I'm with you, Camps.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:03 pm

When "developing" in suburban Phoenix, you have to replant the ACTUAL plants you remove. That's right... you have to pay to have them removed, stored and cared for, and then replanted when you're done. It's pretty restrictive, yet somehow they're tearing up that desert at an alarming rate. Of curse, you're mostly dealing with waist high shrubbery and an occasional cactus, but still.

I'd love to see Nebraska implement something similar. It's nearly impossible to replace the truly mature trees, but you should be required to replant two or three young trees for every one mature that you remove.

-Big E

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:29 pm

Just to play devil's advocate, why would we want to require replanting a tree in an area that was predominantly prairie prior to the arrival of the European immigrants?

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 1:57 pm

icejammer wrote:Just to play devil's advocate, why would we want to require replanting a tree in an area that was predominantly prairie prior to the arrival of the European immigrants?

Well, we can plant wild grass then. Just so long as SOMETHING is done other than acres and acres of manicured lawns.

I'll still vote for trees.

-Big E

cdub · Post by **cdub** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:00 pm

So anything built new on previously unbuilt ground is 'sprawl'?

The city requires tree, wetland and prairie mitigation if the areas are 'natural' (its broadly defined). The code allows for some removal, however, without mitigation. I don't know the specifics or how well it works but its better than some cities I have seen.

joeglow · Post by **joeglow** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:09 pm

I am not too concerned. Records show we have more forest land/trees in the US today than we did 50-100 years ago.

I agree that retaining the trees for the neighborhood would make the neighborhood look better. However, that does not appear to be the intent of the laws.

omahastylee459 · Post by **omahastylee459** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:32 pm

I sure hope they plant plenty of trees at Aksarben village. They slashed and burned tons of pine trees along the perimeter of the property.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:28 pm

cdub wrote:So anything built new on previously unbuilt ground is 'sprawl'?

Not necessarily, nor by definition.

But let's admit it... we don't exactly have the best record to the contrary around here, now do we?

-Big E

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:35 pm

When I lived in Louisiana I despised the fact that they would clear cut for a new development. Not one tree was ever spared, 100's of trees bulldozed down and burned. :what:

StreetsOfOmaha · Post by **StreetsOfOmaha** » Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:26 pm

icejammer wrote:Just to play devil's advocate, why would we want to require replanting a tree in an area that was predominantly prairie prior to the arrival of the European immigrants?

I know you're just playing devil's advocate, but if you're going to use that logic, WE should all just go back to Europe/Africa/Asia and return the land to prairie and forest.

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:40 pm

Kind of sad, considering one of Nebraska's nicknames is "The Tree Planter's State". Maybe next to that we could have another nickname..."The Hypocrisy State."

liquid · Post by **liquid** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:23 pm

advocate or not, icejammer is on to something. it was those folks down at arbor lodge back in the day that couldn't stand the sight of a seemingly 'barren' landscape, even though eastern nebraska had been like that for thousands of years (minus fontenelle forest). all they wanted to do is recreate the woodlands of their former european homes. most of the trees around here aren't native; let's put back the grasslands and create a truly unique city that coexists with the natural environment. :yes: