The disappearance of a major natural unit of vegetation from the face of the earth
is an event worthy of causing pause and consideration by any nation. Yet so gradually has the
prairie been conquered by the breaking plow, the tractor, and the overcrowded herds of man…
that scant attention has been given to the significance of this endless grassland or the course of
its destruction. Civilized man is destroying a masterpiece of nature without recording for
posterity that which he has destroyed. ~ John Ernest Weaver, North American Prairie (1954)
Nine-Mile Prairie, so named by Weaver because of its proximity to downtown Lincoln, Nebraska, is a 230-acre relict prairie owned by the University of Nebraska Foundation. After the Foundation's purchase in 1983, the prairie has been leased by the University of Nebraska for research. Nine-Mile Prairie is home to 392 plant species, more than 80 bird species, and two rare species, the Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) and the regal fritillary butterfly (Speyeria idalia) (“Overview”). As one of only a handful of unplowed prairies left in the U.S., it is fitting that we begin this paper with Dr. Weaver's thoughts. As a pioneering researching on the tallgrass prairie, Weaver was in a unique position to study prairie ecology and plant communities before and after the threat of urban encroachment. His research sets a benchmark for prairie restoration practices, and Nine-Mile Prairie was one of the prairies where he began his work. To prairie researchers, this site of early research is special. However, Nine-Mile Prairie has been, and continues to be, threatened by the slow but relentless encroachment of a sprawling city.
For my Master's Thesis, I am writing a collection of literary essays and poems featuring Nine-Mile Prairie; in the many hours that I've spent in the past year at Nine-Mile Prairie, I've had ample opportunity to ponder both the beauty of the undisturbed landscape and the very visible threats to that ecological system. In this paper, I have attempted to locate published scientific studies that support my view that Nine-Mile Prairie's biggest threat is part and parcel with what makes it so special – its ease of access and nearness to Lincoln itself. Part literature review and part call to action, my aim is to expose the logical fallacies in public policy that allows for the continued dismissal of Nine-Mile Prairie as a valuable ecological resource – both for habitat and for research.
Perhaps the first thing a visitor notices about Nine-Mile Prairie, and really any prairie preserve, is the wide open space, the grass that stretches to a seemingly unreachable horizon and beyond. Nine-Mile Prairie, from some areas, remains that way. However, increasingly, the vista itself has been closed off. To the south, a recently constructed house – McMansion style – sits atop the next hill. Slightly to its side is a blaze-orange and white water tower. Newer still than these are the recently erected high-voltage towers, carrying energy to the outer edges of Lincoln. Though not raised high in the air, the concrete bunkers behind the chain link fence on Lincoln Airport Authority land to the north and west of the entrance gate to the prairie also detract from the prairie view. And though these are modern intrusions that interrupt our musings on the prairie, those intrusions themselves matter little. It is the things that they signify that matter a great deal, if we are to preserve Nine-Mile Prairie in perpetuity.
Perhaps the most persistent threat comes from Lincoln Electric Service. In 2005, in spite of public appeals for an alternate route, LES installed a 345 kilovolt line along approximately half of the southern border of the prairie remnant (Laukaitus, 20 October 2005). This particular piece of line is problematic for scientific study. James Locklear, chairman of the management committee for Nine-Mile Prairie wrote, in a letter to the Lincoln Journal Star, “Utility right-of-way management typically relies heavily on herbicides, and drift or runoff of such chemicals could have devastating effects on the integrity of the prairie as a scientific resource” (28 August 2005). Unlike Konza Prairie's Long Term Ecological Research projects, which are self-contained within individual watersheds, any interference along the southern border crosses watershed boundaries and compromises any longitudinal research. Several studies on the prairie fringed orchid suggest only very specific herbicides and application patterns are allowable without affecting the reproduction of the orchid (Erickson, et al., 462). At this point, LES rights-of-way crews must be trained according to prairie management guidelines, in order to avoid a disastrous accident happening to an already threatened plant species.
Perhaps more troubling are LES tactics and expressed views of the prairie. Ron Ecklund, LES board member, interviewed by the Journal Star in 2005, considered Nine-Mile Prairie to be already compromised, saying “buildings and fences there are a 'detriment.'” His claims that the prairie is “rarely used” is not only telling, but it is incorrect (Laukaitus 10 October 2005). Locklear's letter of August 28th, records numerous visitors from around the country but does not mention classes or researchers that are regular visitors to the prairie, yet Ecklund was quoted as saying, “We can spend more than $1 million to build a power line and directly affect several families, or we can build a power line that won't affect anybody or research at the prairie,” (Laukaitis 10 October 2005). At the risk of reading too much into this statement, it smacks of anti-intellectualism; a research site isn't really good for anything, in the opinion of the board, and certainly LES cannot quantify the commercial value of preserving the prairie.
This insistence that no real harm is being done to research or the prairie is irresponsible and short-sighted. In fact, limited amounts of studies have been conducted on electro-magnetic fields' affects on prairie species. A 1998 study of birds nesting under power lines suggests that reproductive success is affected; statistically significant differences exist in both egg size and volume and in numbers fledged (Doherty & Grubb). A 2005 study by Pittman et al. suggests that lesser prairie chickens – an at-risk grassland bird species – avoid manmade obstructions and intrusions, including power lines and electric motors; the study also shows a low 26% nest success rate. The authors of the study have not yet concluded the extent to which this avoidance contributes to the nest failures, but study continues and certainly bears consideration. Considering that electro-magnetic fields are used as pest-deterrents, especially on nuisance bird species in urban areas, it seems unlikely that these fields have no affect whatsoever, as Ecklund suggests.
Many species of birds, insects, and nocturnal animals can be affected by the light pollution that results from development. Clemson biologist Sidney Gauthreaux explains that migratory species are especially susceptible to confusion due to light pollution in urban areas. He attributes this to “positive phototaxis," which may cause birds to inadvertently navigate toward light (in the absence of visible constellations) and then become confused and traumatized, possibly resulting in large die-offs (Bower). A 2002 conference featured numerous studies that demonstrated the effects of light pollution on lake invertebrates, insects, owls, and even plants (“Abstracts”). I have not found data on measured light at Nine-Mile Prairie, but my own experience there tells me it is significant, especially as it relates to a research area. During the times when I have visited the prairie at night – weekly from August to November – the eastern half of Nine-Mile Prairie remains at a level of lighting that renders the use of a flashlight unnecessary for walking, navigating, or even operating cameras and recorders, even on cloudy nights and nights with no moon. Because no studies have been done on light pollution with pre-existing base numbers, it is difficult to ascertain the true impact of this factor.
One primary contributor to light pollution is the Lincoln Airport, located just to the northeast of the Nine-Mile Prairie site. However, that is not the Lincoln Airport Authority's only contribution to the prairie. The many flights in and out of the Lincoln Airport daily, including military flights, are both low and loud, approaching as many do from the northwest of Nine-Mile Prairie and landing on a diagonally-oriented runway. The Airport Authority has proactively adopted a noise corridor zoning standard, designed to prohibit, with limited exceptions, the development of land that falls within the highest noise corridors around the airport and its approaches (“Appendix E: Suport [sic] Documentation”). This, however, privileges both the population that lives in surrounding areas and the Airport Authority itself, as it wishes to mitigate possible settlements due to noise. Their policy of maintaining noise to just these levels seems self-serving; however, in all fairness, the noise resulting from round-the-clock flight arrivals and departures and the subsequent Airport Authority zoning restrictions have worked, to a certain degree, in Nine-Mile Prairie's favor., because the prairie is buffered by a large section of Airport Authority land, which appears to be managed grasslands. This is land that would, in all likelihood, be in demand for housing and potentially light industry/retail applications, but due to the zoning restrictions, these have not been possible. Again, noise surveys have been conducted by the Airport Authority with regard to housing, but impact studies have not been done with relation to animals in this setting, and further study may be needed to find which, if any, species are affected by regular engine noise.
This large buffer zone is important, I feel, because a managed grassland – even if it is not native prairie or managed in quite the same way as Nine-Mile Prairie (some areas appear to have significantly more invasive native plants like sumac) – is far less likely to become a problem neighbor by harboring exotic species. A housing development would be significantly more likely to plant easily spread exotic plants and/or trees. By definition, housing development disturbs the soil, requires infrastructure such as roads, power lines, water lines, and sewers, and that those types of disturbances give invasives (both native and exotic) a foothold in areas where native grasses had previously kept them out. Once established in disturbed areas, they are able to make inroads into native vegetation (Larson 317). An unrelated study using Old-World bluestem species suggests that native grass species cannot compete against some exotics and will eventually be crowded out if exotics are permitted a purchase (Schmidt, et al., 69). These studies support what many farmers, ranchers, and range managers already know: that soil disturbance never immediately resumes its prior plant community; instead, weedy species and pests predominate for years without induced succession.
One possible exception to this generalization of threat from suburban sprawl may come from new genetically modified organisms. A recent finding in Oregon shows the difficulty in containing these GMOs. Genetically altered creeping bentgrass, designed to be RoundUp ready for use on golf courses, “escaped” from research test plots and genetic traces could be found in other grasses as far away as thirteen miles from the site, more than 25 times the expected distance of drift expected by the researchers (Pollack). Though the numbers are small, it bears consideration that this is a GMO that has not even been made available to the public, and yet it has already had this type of “accident.” If this is eventually approved by the government, the potential for genetic hybridization with native species seems nearly inevitable, and the result is, at this point, not certain. This is especially concerning, considering the Airport Authority's disallowance of residential housing; a golf course could potentially be a reasonable use for just such land without the LAA fearing litigation or complaints. Normally, writes Pollack, the biggest threat of GMOs is the creation of a “super-weed” that is resistant to existing herbicides; the U.S., in the past, approved only grain crops as GMOs – crops that have “no weedy counterpart.” This grassy GMO, however, could not be defended in that way.
With only approximately 2% of the nation's historic virgin prairie left, it is difficult to watch as it is assaulted from seemingly every quarter by people attempting fiduciary reductionism. While it's unrealistic to ask city and county agencies and utilities to expend millions to protect Nine-Mile Prairie, advocates for the prairie have seemed to be quite careful to give thoughtful and reasonable alternatives to infringing on the site; often, it seems as though impositions are made simply because they are easier, especially when Nine-Mile Prairie does not involve private property. In spite of many defenders from the community, the Wachiska Audubon Society, and the University, it seems that the voice of Nine-Mile Prairie is often lost in the argument over development. Most concerning to me, though, is the disregard for science and research that is shown when making policy in Lincoln. In spite of Lincoln's Comprehensive Plan which quite clearly states the city's objectives to “protect unique, rare, threatened or endangered plant and animal species . . . maintain, preserve and enhance existing native prairie . . . and preserve . . . significant ecological resources,” the simple fact is that when making policy and planning decisions, the responsible persons appear to give little credence to published scientific study and they have not been required to complete environmental impact studies at the local or state level (74). My hope for the future of Nine-Mile Prairie is that, through strong University and Audubon leadership, a renewed emphasis on research and science may be presented to local agencies wishing to further develop immediately surrounding the site. In this way, I believe, prairie management can argue successfully against commercially-driven development without resorting to emotional appeals that are, at best, only modestly successful. Though I am one of Nine-Mile Prairie's most heartfelt champions, you “can only fight fire, with fire,” and only hard facts and figures will impact policy makers. That being said, I would call upon our professors and students to pursue, document, and publish Nine-Mile Prairie research that specifically deals with the urban sprawl threats, in order to strengthen protections for the site.
Works Cited
“Abstracts.” Urban Wildlands Group. 2002. Web.
“Appendix E: Suport [sic] Documentation for Land Use Regulations Within and Below 65DNL.”
Coffman Associates Airport Consultants. Lincoln Airport Authority. n.d. Web.
Bower, Joe. “The Dark Side of Light.” Audubon Magazine. 2000. Web.
Doherty, Paul F., Jr., and Thomas C. Grubb, Jr. “Reproductive Success of Cavity-Nesting
Birds Breeding Under High-Voltage Power Lines.” American Midland Naturalist 140.1
(1998): 122-128. Web.
Erickson, Ann M., Rodney G. Lym, Don Kirby. “Effects of Herbicides for Leafy Spurge Control
On the Western Prairie Fringed Orchid.” Rangeland Ecology and Management 59.5
(2006): 462-67. Web.
Larson, Diane L. “Native Weeds and Exotic Plants: Relationships to Disturbance in Mixed-Grass
Prairie. Plant Ecology 169.2 (2003): 317-333. Web.
Laukaitis, Algis. “LES Board Avoids Nine-Mile Prairie But Not Entirely.” Lincoln Journal-Star.
10 October 2005. Web.
---. “LES Board Oks Power Line Near Prairie. Lincoln Journal-Star. 20 October 2005. Web.
Locklear, James H. “Letters, 8/29: Preserve the Prairie.” Lincoln Journal-Star. 28 August 2005. Web.
“Overview.” University of Nebraska-Lincoln: About SNR. 2011. Web.
Pittman, James C., Christian A. Hagen, Robert J. Robel, Thomas M. Loughin, Roger D.
Applegate. “Location and Success of Lesser Prairie Chicken Nests in Relation to
Vegetation and Human Disturbance.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 69.3 (2005):
1259-69. Web.
Pollack, Andrew. “Grass Created in Lab is Found in the Wild.” New York Times. 16 August
2006. Web.
Schmidt, Cheryl D., Karen R. Hickman, Rob Channell, Keith Harmoney, William Stark.
“Competitive Abilities of Native Grasses and Non-Native Grasses. Plant Ecology 197
(2oo8): 69-80. Web.
No comments:
Post a Comment