Very nice Tom. I was just looking at some of these yesterday near one of our storm water detention ponds. This particular site is in an area that was developed but in which all wooded sections were not destroyed. So such remnant patches do exist there. Ironically, to me at least, the big push around these ponds is for "native vegetation". Somehow, this has come to mean prairie, even though this area was not a prairie originally. Somehow, the remaining patches of forest are not considered native. This is very troubling to me, and I am gradually working to adjust the outlook of the storm water engineers with whom I work. The difficulty springs from the fact that I've gotten onboard this particular initiative 15 years too late.

+oM

wisconsitom,

Thanks for your post. I have kind of wondered that myself about the detention ponds in cities and towns around me as well. I assumed the "prairie" look was simply a design expediency to be able to dig out the ponds with an excavator if they silted up. I agree that they would be more functional for native flora and fauna if, say, half the area around the pond was planted as an open woods.

I wonder if the design folks simply followed the natural human bias toward open spaces...or maybe it is just a budget thing?

I appreciate your (and anyone's) efforts to change the established way of thinking.

-Tom

Yeah, I was at a conference wherein the guy that actually made the big prairie push in this region was main speaker. He readily admitted that it was his own bias that led so many down this path. He did allow that, for systems having the ability, more plant communities can and should be incorporated into these sites. I've made a few exploratory moves into this territory, having to be careful not to "scare" the engineers!

+oM

Gorgeous pictures!

Very nice find and pics!

FataMorgana