Individual situations can vary, but in general surface roots result from overly compacted soil. Roots grow near the surface because there is too little air/oxygen at the lower levels. Foot traffic on and near a pathway would account for much of the compaction in this case. Roots will also travel to areas of greater moisture. If the area close to the trees is drier than the area kept moist by the sprinkler system, roots will naturally migrate to the wetter area. Pruning the tops of trees will do nothing to control root growth which will continue for the life of the tree. Pruning will also stimulate more growth in the above ground portion and quite possibly in the roots as well. Whether to remove the trees is purely a personal decision. 15 to 20 feet is pretty close to the house, so you might have some concern for the roots damaging the foundation. This is unlikely except for rock foundations. There are root barrier fabrics which can be installed to protect a foundation or path, but they are a great deal of work to put in place, especially around relatively mature trees.

Yes, birch-any type of birch-are not particularly known for damage to foundations, etc. I'd say that is extremely unlikely. As for shallow rootedness, that's really how trees grow, period. True, as Maine said, compacted, poorly aerated soil exacerbates the tendency but it's really just how trees grow.

Heavy branch removal will actually cause some root die-back-the top-most portions of the tree actually control root growth via hormones which are produced in growing tips and sent down to the roots to tell them to grow. But....massacring the tree so as to slow down root growth seems utterly pointless to me. And then, because branch removal will cause the tree to make lots of new branches, in time, the shoot/root ration will go right back to what it was. We're talking futility here....don't go there.

You just have to decide for yourself what you can tolerate. If it was me, I didn't read one single thing that would be a problem in my world. I love trees and if a few roots run along the surface, it is of no consequence to me. You seem to be in a different place, so you must decide. I sure wouldn't remove trees because of anything I've read here.

we really need some pix.. to opine ...

at 11 years... its annual growth rate is set ... but for weather extremes.. like prolonged drought.. trees do not grow more... as they get older ...

are there any other trees in the area ... can you be sure the offending roots are from these trees ...

my bottom line.. on any plant... if its not pleasing you.. get rid of it.. time for a change ... no tree hugging involved.. for me ...

but to really give you advice.. we need some pix...

ken

This species can produce a quite large specimen, and it is typical for birches planted in less than capacious settings to start outliving their welcome at about 15 years.

Birches are thirsty trees that form a sod-like root layer that can prevent other plants from doing well beneath them, once the trees are big enough. During dry summer periods it can seem that no amount of watering is enough.

On the other hand, birch are not so dominant in their spots. Crowns tend towards narrow, oval shapes, leaves are of such a density that quite a bit of light gets through, and we're just not talking about a big silver maple here or something like that which really does inhibit growing plants underneath. Birch-any type of birch-is not even second-tier when it comes to such concerns.

Thank you all for your valued inputs. I
have decided to keep the trees and deal with any situation they might
present in the coming future. I tried searching for a replacement but
just couldn't find one as adequate, or maybe I have some emotional
attachments to these guys. I say adequate because these guys provide an
umbrella of sorts, even in the winter because we have somewhat of a
public road. So I realized that the investment made in growing these
trees should be better made use of. They provide an invaluable
service which I was blind to see before.

My plan is to cut away the obstructing
roots, which should be small, from underneath the footpath after
summer months. Then my question becomes, is there any value in
pruning them? There is some conflicting replies here that's why I was
asking. Almost every top growth has split off into two. Would pruning
them help in discouraging rapid top and roots growth in the slightest
degree or help in the deterring of fast growth from less foliage?

I actually think setting up a sprinkler and scattering some fertilizer away from the path to lure the roots in that direction might be more useful. Trees seek water. Any tree experts want to comment on that?

Alph, in regards to your last stated question-and this assuming I've correctly interpreted it-I would tend to not agree with directives wherein someone is being advised to remove a certain percentage of top growth to "balance" out root loss. That's just not how trees work. Hormones, called auxins, are produced in growing tips of trees. These auxins in turn send chemical signals-or more accurately, are the chemical signals, telling the roots to expand. So removing top parts so as to make up for root loss is actually largely counterproductive.

Now don't think therefore that one can never prune trees. Nothing could be further from the truth. But in virtually every case, we prune trees to satisfy our own requirements, not to help the tree. That's the dichotomy that needs to be addressed.