Park Vine Clearing Vexes Environmentalists, Council Hopes for ‘Healthy Forest Initiative’

AVALON – Once again Borough Council found itself at odds with ecology-minded residents Feb. 25. For several months, a council that appears to be trying to govern while remaining sensitive to environmental issues is being clearly told by a group of citizens it is failing in its responsibilities to the environment.
For much of the end of 2014, the public comment period at council meetings was dominated by accusations that the borough was not enforcing its own ordinance meant to protect indigenous trees during demolition and construction projects.
Council responded by asking borough administrators to develop new rules and procedures that would make it much more difficult for individuals to skirt requirements when getting permits. Still for a period spanning several council meetings, residents brought back to council stories of incidents where the new procedures were not being properly executed.
Whether because of increased enforcement of the ordinance or because the change of seasons brought fewer demolitions, the issue disappeared from prominent display at council meetings.
Then the plans to intervene in the ecology of Armacost Park were proposed and council found itself in the same position of battling environmentalist-citizens.
Adversarial or Ecologically Right?
Council members found themselves in that adversarial role again on a project they undertook in order to do what they say is the ecologically right thing to do at the park on Third Avenue at 74th Street.
In this project, part of what has been titled the Avalon Healthy Forest Initiative; council members see themselves as acting to restore the health of the park’s ecology which they have been told is severely threatened by invasive vines. The borough states it is being a good environmental steward.
Council was presented with a description of the park that was, in the word of one administrator, “bleak.” A set of vines, some indigenous and at least one not so, had become so invasive that they “dominate the ecosystem.”
According to borough administrators, careful, long-term study, supported by expert advice, had brought them to the proposal for a “pilot project” aimed at a “limited area of the park” which would be “monitored and evaluated” before any other steps were taken.
Deteriorating Ecosystem
The issue took on urgency, council was told, both because of the park’s deteriorating ecosystem and the desire to intervene during a period when the park is not heavily used by migratory birds. At its first meeting in February, in the face of opposition by some residents, council gave the go-ahead for the pilot project.
With work in the park underway, February’s second council meeting saw the issue front and center again. Four different residents used the comment period to chastise council. They claimed that the work in the park went well beyond what they had been told.
‘Underbrush Clearing’
“This was not the removal of select vines,” said resident Frank McLaughlin. “It was an underbrush clearing job, not vine removal,” he said. Others argued that the underbrush being removed is a vital part of the ecosystem that supports bird life in the park. They argued that the underbrush was used by the birds for protection, nesting, and food.
Martha Wright, a resident who had been conspicuous in her demands that the landscape ordinance be better enforced after what she claimed was the loss of hundreds of indigenous trees to demolition projects, provided council with a picture of a dead heron in the work area within Armacost Park.
“This is a significant habitat for birds in Avalon,” Wright argued as she requested that council explain what the next steps would be inside the park.
The public comment period turned to outright confrontation when resident Elaine Scattergood angrily asked the council “whom do you represent?” She painted a picture of swooping chainsaws doing their work well over the five-foot ceiling that the pilot project had on vine removal.
While there was some focus on what hand-held mechanized equipment may have been used in the clearing, it was tangential to the real issue.
Needed or Not?
To those opposed, intervention in the ecosystem of the park was never really necessary. Further, the pilot project has been handled in a manner that they saw as heavy handed and well beyond the scope of what was required for vine removal. This raised serious concerns about coming stages of the project.
Scattergood asked how much the borough consultant stood to make on this intervention in the park when the full effort is undertaken following the pilot. The implication of her comments could be taken to mean that money was at the root of the intervention and Council President Charles Covington was having none of it. “I resent your statements,” he said.
Scattergood invited the council to “look around Avalon and see the destruction of habitat.” She concluded, “Leave one area alone.”
James Waldron, assistant business administrator, assured council the project had been necessary and that the pilot intervention was being carefully monitored.
According to Memo
Reading into the record a memo from the Lomax Consulting Group, the borough’s environmental consultants, Waldron noted that the removal project was completed. Reading from the memo he said that the Lomax Consulting Group had “provided oversight and guidance… to ensure compliance with the standards of the project that were set by the Avalon Environmental Commission.”
Explaining away what the residents called wholesale “underbrush clearing,” the memo stated, “the majority of the understory in Armacost Park consisted of the vines that were proposed to be removed.”
It went on to say “there is now a vast difference in the appearance of the forest as it is largely more open in the understory.”
No Mention of Birds
No mention was made of the claim that migratory birds need that understory. The memo concluded by taking exactly the opposite position from the residents who oppose intervention. It states “Overall, initial outlook for the health of Armacost Park is positive.”
This leaves council in the position of supporting an environmental initiative in the name of environmental stewardship while being at odds with environmentally-conscience citizens who go so far as to even accuse it of possible chicanery.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.