Rachel,
Something similar to this happened on the University of Mississippi
campus. Although no restoration project was ruined, I had been
monitoring the understory plant composition in one of the last
remaining, possibly old-growth upland forests left in north
Mississippi. One day I found that crews had come in with box blades
and took out everything less than 2 inches basal diameter. They made
plenty of soil disturbance in the process.
When I found out who gave the order (the head of landscaping at the
university) and asked him why it was done, I was given a variety of
reasons, some of which may sound very familiar to you. First and
foremost, he said he was concerned about the "bad man in the bushes",
particularly co-eds being attacked by rapists and murderers. Second,
he was wanting to control non-native species, most notably, Chinese
privet. I mentioned that this was a totally bogus reason. Chinese
privet was restricted to the edges and the stream gullies and was
sparse within the forest interior. Most of what they cut down were
seedlings of oaks and saplings of red maples, hickories, dogwoods,
cherries, etc. Most of these will grow back (along the few privet
stems that were cut). More alarming is the fact that, afterwards, a
highly invasive non-native grass, Microstegium vimineum, colonized
most of the now highly disturbed ground that resulted from their
non-selective, ham-handed operations. Third, he mentioned that it was
also done to reduce fire hazard. Finally, he admitted that a lot of
alumni had complained about all that "rough brush" in the understory
of the forest. They just didn't like the way it looked. It appeared
unkempt to them. That, I'm afraid, is probably the REAL reason. When
alumni complain about something and there's no response, donations
are sure to decrease. He was clearly worried about his job. In
addition to complaints from the public about safety and illicit
activities, I'd be curious to see if anyone in Santa Cruz or Berkeley
simply complained about how the native plantings looked and if any of
these folks were major campaign contributors. Perhaps that's a bit of
paranoia and excessive cynicism on my part, though.
Steve Brewer
At 1:16 PM -0800 2/19/09, Dr. Rachel O'Malley wrote:
Hello all,
I have observed a disturbing trend in my home in Santa Cruz,
California that I see echoed in this recent article from Berkeley,
CA
http://berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-02-19/article/32287?headline=Green-Neighbors-The-Richmond-Chainsaw-Massacre-Part-One
In these cases, urban riparian corridors are denuded in the name of
public safety, despite the existence of a restoration plan of some
sort. In the Santa Cruz case, the work is done by furloughed
prisoners engaged by the city government, no qualified biologists
are employed, and a vegetation removal permit entitled "riparian
restoration" is issued , despite the heavy removal of willows, box
elders and other natives.
Is this new trend peculiar to the Central Coast of California, or
are others seeing similar problems with urban stream "restorations"?
Please share any stories you may have with me...
Thanks,
Rachel O'Malley
--
Department of Biology
PO Box 1848
University of Mississippi
University, Mississippi 38677-1848
Brewer web page - http://home.olemiss.edu/~jbrewer/
FAX - 662-915-5144
Phone - 662-915-1077
