Whose Nature Are We Talking About?

  • Several neighbors near Cook County Illinois' Bunker Hill Forest Preserve are concerned about the loss of trees. Bathsheba Burmin is third from the left. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

When somebody says a natural area, does everybody have the same thing in mind? Some might see a park with baseball fields or a golf course as a natural area. But natural area means what it looked like for hundreds or thousands of years before humans started changing the landscape. Sometimes, that natural landscape was changed so long ago, when it’s restored to the way it looked oringally, it’s not very familiar to the people who live there now. Shawn Allee talked with some people who disagree about the idea of restoring natural areas:

Transcript

When somebody says a natural area, dose everybody have the same thing in mind? Some might see a park with baseball fields or a golf course as a natural area. But natural area means what it looked like for hundreds or thousands of years before humans started changing the landscape. Sometimes, that natural landscape was changed so long ago, when it’s restored to the way it looked oringally, it’s not very familiar to the people who live there now. Shawn Allee talked with some people who disagree about the idea of restoring natural areas:

If you go to the Bunker Hill Forest Preserve just outside Chicago, you find picnic spaces, bike trails, and woods – acres of woods.

If it’s the wrong day, though, a security guard will turn you back from the woods.

Guard: “Closed off for a while? It’s closed off for a while. They’re doing a controlled burn – they’re burning that field over there.”

Man: “What are you doing exactly? Burning?”

Guard: “Controlled burn.”

Forest preserve workers in sooty, yellow fire suits are burning brush and trees.

They say soil tests show this land was once savanna – a kind of grassland with a few trees mixed in.

They’re trying to restore it to that original landscape.

Volunteers help out with this restoration, but a small number of people want to stop it.

“Everything they burned today is area they’ve cleared over the past two years. We’re opposed to cutting our urban forests.”

Bathsheba Burmin shows me the site – after it’s cooled.

She wants me to see what it takes to turn woods into savanna.

Burmin: “It’s a little muddy, so…”

Allee: “It’s hard not to notice.”

(sounds of walking through mud)

Allee: “This place is being actively transformed.”

Burmin: “Yes.”

Allee: “You can see brush piles moved around, trees have obviously been cut because you can see the stumps, and obviously they burned just today.”

Burmin: “What it does is tell the story of what the restructuring of an ecosystem looks like.”

Burmin and a few of her neighbors have protested the transformation of these woods into savanna.

Some don’t believe this was ever grassy savanna in the first place.

Burmin says, even if it was savanna – it’s not now; it’s woodland – and she regrets losing the trees.

Burmin: “If you’re not familiar with the site and you hear there’s an increase in grassland species you must be doing something wonderful. Nobody talked about what happened to all the woodland species. The reason you have an increase in grassland species, but that’s because you took out all the forest.”

Habitat restoration can be violent.

It can involve poisoning or burning unwanted plants or maybe killing animals like deer that graze on more desirable plants.

Wildlife managers use restoration techniques all the time, but on occasion critics like Burmin ask tough questions about it.

When that happens, people like Stephen Packard rush to its defense.

“Now we’re standing in a place where all the brush was cut last year.”

Packard heads the Chicago chapter of the Audobon Society.

He’s offered to show me some restored savanna, about ten miles north of that Bunker Hill spot.

It looks kinda familiar.

Allee: “There’re stumps and sticks everywhere.”

Packard: “Is this ugly or is it not ugly? Here’s my perspective on it. To me it’s like a bunch of broken eggshells after someone made an omelet. I think this is a beautiful thing to see the first stage of recovery. It is stumps, it is bare ground, but from doing this, I know certain plants will start to come up and keep developing.”

Packard says no one restores savanna because they like chopping trees.

It’s just that some plants need open space and light – like in a savanna. Dense woods create too much shade for them.

He says if we let some natural areas literally run wild, a few aggressive species take over, and the rare ones lose out.

“You lose millions of years of evolution of these thousands of species that may be important to the planet, so why not have some places where we can take care of them?”

Packard says some natural areas are so unhealthy, that for now, we need to protect some parts of nature from others.

And if you don’t buy that – you don’t buy restoration.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

No New Federal Dollars for Restoration

For the past year, the federal government, states, and
Indian tribes have been devising a unified restoration plan to
clean up and protect the Great Lakes. They released a first draft
this summer. But as negotiations continue, state governments and
environmentalists say the effort is being undercut by a major player.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee has
more:

Transcript

For the past year, the federal government, states, and Indian tribes have been devising a
unified restoration plan to clean up and protect the Great Lakes. They released a first
draft this summer. But as negotiations continue, state governments and environmentalists
say the effort is being undercut by a major player. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Shawn Allee has more:


The first draft of the restoration plan called for dozens of ambitious measures. They
included cleaning up toxic waste and keeping invasive species out of the Great Lakes.
But more than anything, the first draft raised expectations.


“The public response to the draft report that was released this July was very
encouraging.”


David Naftzger is with the Council of Great Lakes Governors.


“Public meetings were held throughout the region and there is broad-based support for
restoring and protecting the Great Lakes.”


State governments generally praised the draft, but questioned the federal government’s
commitment to the effort. Now, they and environmental groups worry their fears were
justified.


Last month, administration advisors issued an internal report that called the first draft of
the plan too ambitious and too costly.


One major sticking point is how to prevent sewage from getting into the lakes. Sewer
upgrades could cost tens of billions of dollars. States want more money, but the
president’s advisors are balking.


Benjamin Grumbles is with the Environmental Protection Agency’s water division.


“We all agree that more work needs to be done on sewer overflows and that the federal
government will continue to provide money, but it’s not realistic to expect an infusion of
that level in the near term.”


Grumbles says federal help’s required to improve sewers everywhere, not just in the
Great Lakes. Grumbles says the administration’s committed to identifying long-term
restoration goals. Administration advisors say continuing negotiations should focus on
short-term measures that require no additional spending.


But David Naftzger says federal leadership should mean more federal dollars.


“This is deeply disappointing, while more can be done with existing resources and there
can be improvements to existing programs, quite simply many of our region’s challenges
require additional funding.”


The plan’s final draft is due next month.


Until then, state governments and environmentalists hope to prod what they see as an
increasingly reluctant partner.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links