Steve -- A similar situation occurred here at Fort Hays State University a few years ago. The same reasons for the actions were given. One good thing that developed out of the situation is that grounds now talks to us in the Department of Biological Sciences before such action is taken and has modified such practices in accordance with our recommendations. mas tarde, EJF
Steve Brewer <[email protected]> Sent by: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" <[email protected]> 02/20/2009 09:14 AM Please respond to Steve Brewer <[email protected]> To [email protected] cc Subject Re: [ECOLOG-L] Urban stream "restoration" as a front for ecological destruction? 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
