Park Plants Wildflowers To Control Maintenance Costs

Inearly 1981 the Howard County Department of Recreation and Parks, through its Bureau of Parks, began to identify a potential problem in operations. Developed park acreage was expanding so rapidly that the staff envisioned a time in the near future when the overall maintenance requirements would vastly outstrip the available operatingbudget dollars. The rate of development between 1975 and 1987 was more than 4, 000 percent. Various strategies to solve this problem were discussed. An overall reduction in park services was rejected as a possibility, since many functions were governed by specific health-and-safety requirements for the general public. Selective reductions would probably have to be made. The parks bureau began looking seriously at repetitive maintenance; those highly laborintensive tasks made up a large portion of its annual schedule. Since the bureau had achieved a good deal of success in replacing much hand trimming with a chemical maintenance program, it was determined that some alternative to routine maintenance of large passive-use turf areas might be appropriate. The bureau began to alter its mowing patterns, leaving large areas of tall fescue turf unmowed. Public reaction to this approach was decidedly negative. There were many complaints about poor maintenance and the generally unkempt look the parks. The bureau had previously tried a thenpopular "wildflower seed mix" with very poor results. However, this idea kept coming back as an available option. If an attractive alternative could be coupled with public education, the "naturalized" landscape could be turned from a liability into a definite asset to the department. The staff began to seek information on both native plantings and wildflowers. After discussions with most of the education and extension professionals in the Mid-Atlantic region, as well as private agencies and institutions, it was determined that very little information existed on the use of wildflowers in the area. Interest has grown nationwide in wildflowers and native plantings, spurred in large part by the untiring efforts of Mrs. Lady Bird Johnson, who founded the National Wildflower Research Center. However, most of this activity was concentrated in the West. Nevertheless, extension personnel advised that wildflowers should be an excellent alternative in the transition zone, and should do very well in poor soils under adverse conditions. They could provide a color-and-texture alternative to the limited landscaping available in the developing parks. Who could possibly object to a vibrant mass of color in a park setting? Armed with this information, the Bureau of Parks began to gather preliminary information, hoping to develop a future wildflower-and-naturalization program. By early 1983, Mark Raab, grounds division supervisor, had organized the information gathered earlier by the bureau. One of the first problems encountered was the lack of budget monies to establish the necessary test plots to evaluate materials for use in the parks. These test plots would be essential to any future success of this program, as no other research data existed. Lacking information from education and extension services, Rabb hit upon the idea of going directly to the seed producers for assistance. Approximately 20 were contacted by letter. They were informed of the bureau's intent to establish wildflower test plots on a limited basis. It was made clear to the suppliers that the Department of Recreation and Parks was not a research agency; nor was it being supported by any extension service or university. But Rabb promised to share test results with the various suppliers, primarily in return for information and technical assistance. Evidently the time was right. Seven of the suppliers responded with guaranteed pledges of donations-enough to establish four acres of test plots. The department had decided that if wildflowers and a general naturalized landscape were to be successful, they would have meet certain guidelines. The areas must be passive, non-use areas with extremely low levels of maintenance. Yet the plots would have to be a positive addition to the park envi ron ment. It was important that these plots blend into the parks-on slopes, swales, and other areas on the periphery of active park facilities. These areas were selected as much for aesthetics as to test their ability to reduce labor and equipment time. Finally, the majority of the work to establish and maintain the plots had to be done in the "off season"-Iate fall through very early spring. The department selected three park sites that could be divided into 13 separate plots. These plots were not the standard research plot; each was fitted into the overall park design. continued on page 31