I was walking my dog along the greenway off North Broadway yesterday (the one by the flower market)and felt so grateful it was not all manicured. I loved the wild flowers and natural vegetation, and the running stream. I think it's part of First Creek. These creeks are a wonderful natural resource. In Ireland, I noticed the tiniest creeks were kept clean and some had benches beside them. People might not value those little creeksides much right now, but they can provide a wonderful refuge from all the concrete, asphalt, and stores. Poor animals! We keep stealing more and more of their habitat.

There was a huge trash problem though. Does anyone know who is in charge of the Greenways? Being close to an area with so many homeless people, I assumed they were adding to the problem. I guess no one can expect the city to be down there everyday, but they could make cleaning the Greenways part of community service. Better than having them all working at Goodwill anyway.

Next time I'll bring a trashbag with me.

This makes it sound like the project was steered by an oil company that owes its fortune to beer, tobacco, junk food, and lottery tickets.

Do you have a link to Neely's article? Does it explain (or try to explain) why this clearing was done? If not, does someone somewhere explain it?

As I recall, Jack's report was included in his weekly column. The original project as I understood it was to restore the original stream channel between Sutherland Ave and the railroad.

In contrast to my Saturday experience, yesterday I walked along the new section of greenway between Northwest Junior High and Victor Ashe Parking enjoying the peaceful sound of Third Creek flowing through its natural stream bed.

I'm not sure which segment of Third Creek you're talking about, but clearing trees and removing rocks from the creekbed does not sound like progress. There has been a fair amount of restoration work on Third Creek recently, and it may simply be too fresh to look like anything but destruction. It's been a while since I've visited.

The channel restoration project is right behind West High School. The project includes eradication of invasive plants and promotion of native streambank vegetation. It also includes restoring meanders to a straightened segment of channel, although they did not restore the natural channel because they were not allowed to touch the paved path beside the creek. Based on an early sketch of the project, I'm not sure they made any attempt to align the new bends with the natural topography. No doubt there were disturbances of the creekbed involved in that effort.

The clearing of vegetation closer to the river was also an effort to remove invasives and reestablish native vegetation. There were probably mimosas and princess trees and ailanthus taken down, but hopefully no native trees. The severe frost damage probably contributes to the lack of shade on the creek.

It seems inappropriate to me to judge recently completed work based only on appearance, and the notion that Third Creek has been "marvelous" any time in the past few decades is laughable.

I can't speak for what Third Creek looked like before -- prior to construction, the last time I was down there may have been 30 years ago. But the uncleared areas on the opposite side of the path are absolutely crammed full of exotic shrubs, and I'm guessing that's what the cleared area looked like, too.

I went down today and briefly walked along a small section of the stream, from Sutherland to just the other side of the RR tracks (the project continues for a long way downstream of there, as far as I could see), but from what I can tell, they've done a respectable job. On the north side of the railroad, there are several dozen tree saplings (I saw red maple, sycamore, river birch, and an oak -- maybe willow oak?), and if you look closely on the creek bank, there are cut twigs of riparian shrubs that are just starting to break bud (silky dogwood was the only one with open leaves, but there were several other species as well). There weren't as many trees planted on the south side of the tracks, but there's already a well developed canopy there. In 10 years time, there will be plenty of noticeable woody plants, and thick shrub cover along the stream.

As far as the grass goes -- I couldn't figure out what the baby grasses were, but I'm assuming it's annual rye. That's standard practice in restorations when revegetating a bare site -- you need a quick, temporary cover crop to prevent erosion while the permanent ground cover becomes established. I don't know what that permanent ground cover will be, though. It's possible that they might seed in some sort of semi-shade tolerant native grasses, since that would be attractive, provide some wildlife value and habitat diversity, and give miscreants fewer places to hide and waylay people using the path. Whatever they do, I'm confident it's not going to be an open fescue lawn.

The creek itself has been cleared of rocks and logs which has eliminated the natural pools that once existed

There's not much they could do about the existing rocks if the goal was to un-ditch the stream. And, maybe I'm wrong, but I wonder if there were very many large ones there to begin with -- they would have had to wash down from a considerable distance away. That's a good point, though, about having pools in the stream. Hopefully, they eventually will anchor in some logs.

(link...) Third Creek is listed on Page 90 of this lovely presentation of "Tennessee's Most Polluted Creeks" aka 303B report.

I wonder if what you are seeing now is part of a very slow restoration process?

(link...)

(link...)

If nothing else, look at the first report so you know which streams you need to keep your kids out of.

Starting with water quality, I never said that First Creek itself is “marvelous.” On the contrary, it shows signs of poor water quality where it flows behind Victor Ashe Park miles upstream from the greenway. It then flows south where it collects runoff from I-40, I-640, and the Middlebrook Pike Industrial Park.

I have no idea where Rikki came up with the notion that the restoration work was being done behind West High School. That section is a tributary that is for the most part dry except after heavy rains when it collects runoff from Cherokee Country Club, the Western Plaza area, Kingston Pike, and Sutherland Ave. After passing the restored section the creek collects runoff from Fort Sanders, the Strip, and the western portion of the UT campus. IMO, it is doubtful that the current “restoration” will improve water quality.

I have no problem with the work that was done between Sutherland Ave and the railroad. It would have been next to impossible to damage that section of the creek. That section, however, appears to be a small portion of the creek that had previously been diverted to a channel.

Given the City’s committed budget for maintenance, it appears doubtful that there will ever be a major replacement of native species. That, however, is certainly not my area of expertise. After rereading the City’s press release, it appears this project may have been generated it part at least by TDOT money needing to be spent in East Tennessee to balance that spent in West Tennessee.

I’m somewhat new to digital photography so mine are not up to Randy’s quality and the files appear to be much larger than Randy’s so I have posted them to Flickr. The link follows: (link...)

So if I'm following you correctly, you see two problems, which are restricted to the stretch downstream from the RR tracks:

1. The streambed was damaged severely. I can't speak to that -- I never saw it before, and I didn't get down at look at it yesterday either, other than to note that there was a pretty nice area of riffles just past that first bend after the RR. If the only fault is that there aren't as many boulders and large logs in the stream, that seems pretty easily fixable. But I'd be interested to hear more specifics if the problems go beyond that.

2. There was an excessively large number of native species removed, both along the stream and in the floodplain, and they haven't been replaced. Again, I don't know what the baseline condition was, but there're almost no natives in the woodlot on the other side of the path, so I'm not sure there were many on the river side, either. But, at least along the stream, there has been an extensive planting of native shrubs. You can't seem them, since they're just little twigs*, but they're there, from a cursory examination, they look to be alive and establishing well, and barring an extremely severe drought or flood this year or next, there will be thick growth along the stream in 5 years. In the floodplain -- it's not apparent to me what the plan is. Maybe there is no plan, I dunno. But the plantings I saw were done very professionally, so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt right now, barring any additional information that would suggest otherwise.

* edit: you can actually seem them sticking up along the stream in your first picture.

I emailed the COK Stormwater Management office last night, and they promptly replied (at 9:36 am!). So if you have concerns, they obviously will be willing to talk with you. The plans are in their office for review anytime, and I'll probably go by and take a look, just out of curiosity.

The COK engineer I corresponded with, David Hagerman, added this: "Greg Babbit is the contact with the TSMP for questions about additional plantings, replanting, and additional invasive removal for the next three years. He can be reached at 310-2131." (Note that he mentions that work will be continuing for several years at this site.)

Here are some pdfs they sent me. Without seeing the entire plan, and viewing them in that context, I'm reluctant to make any definitive comments, but quickly looking through the species lists, they're as good as any I've ever seen (I used to do botanical reviews for various state and federal agencies). Honestly, from a vegetation restoration point of view, this appears to be an absolutely first rate projet.

[3rd Creek Lg Tree list.pdf]
THIRD CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT

Common Name 		Species 		Size 		Quantity
Red Maple 		Acer rubrum 		5' MP; 5-gal 	15
River Birch 		Betula nigra 		5' MP; 5-gal 	30
American Hornbeam 	Carpinus caroliniana 	6' BB 		12
Blackgum 		Nyssa sylvatica 	6' BB 		15
Witchhazel 		Hamamelis virginiana 	4’ BB 		11
Serviceberry 		Amelanchier arborea 	4' BB 		15
Green Ash 		Fraxinus pennsylvanica 	6' MP; 7-gal 	25
Tulip Poplar 		Liriodendron tulipifera 5' BB 		25
Sycamore 		Platanus occidentalis 	6' MP; 7-gal 	25
Overcup Oak 		Quercus lyrata 		6' BB 		15
Swamp Chestnut Oak 	Q. michauxii 		1½" Cal., WB 	10
Willow Oak 		Q. phellos 		6' BB 		15
Shumard Oak 		Q. shumardii 		6' BB 		15
Red Chokeberry 		Aronia arbutifolia 	3-gal 		12
Virginia Willow 	Itea virginica 		3-gal 		12
Spicebush 		Lindera benzoin 	3-gal 		12
Arrowwood Viburnum 	Viburnum dentatum 	18" BB 		12
TOTAL 276

================
[Third Creek Seedling list.pdf]
THIRD CREEK PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS - AFTER CONSTRUCTION

ZONE 1
Sub totals

ZONE 2
Common Name 	Scientific Name 	Stratum 	Spacing (feet) 	Plant Material Size 	Stems/Acre 	Area (acres) 	Total Stems
River Birch 	Betula nigra 		Overstory 	10X10 		Bare-root 		400 		0.5 	  	200
Green Ash 	Fraxinus pennsylvanica 	Overstory 	10x10 		Bare-root 		400 		0.5 		200
Yellow Poplar 	Liriodendron tulipifera Overstory 	10x10 		Bare-root 		400 		0.5 		200
Spicebush 	Lindera benzoin 	Understory 	10x10 		Bare-root 		400 		0.5 		200
Common winterberry Ilex verticillata 	Understory 	10x10 		Bare-root 		400 		0.5 		200
Virginia willow Itea virginica 		Understory 	10X10 		1-gal 			400 		0.6 		200
Sycamore 	Platanus occidentalis 	Overstory 	10x10 		Bare-root 		400 		0.5 		200
Sub totals 													3 		1400

ZONE 3
Swamp Chestunt Oak Quercus michauxii 	Overstory 	10X10 		Bare-root 		400 		3 		1200
Willow oak 	Quercus phellos 	Overstory 	10X10 		Bare-root 		400 		3 		1200
Northern red oak Quercus rubra 		Overstory 	10X10 		Bare-root 		400 		3 		1200
Coralberry 	Symphoricarpus orbiculatus Understory 	10X10 		1-gal 			400 		0.6 		200
Witchhazel 	Hamamelis virginiana 	Midstory 	10x10 		Bare-root 		400 		0.6 		240
Pawpaw 		Asimina triloba 	Midstory 	10x10 		Bare-root 		400 		0.6 		240
Red mulberry 	Morus rubra 		Midstory 	10x10 		Bare-root 		400 		0.6 		240
Sub totals 													12 		4600

ZONE 4
Sub totals 													0 		0

TOTALS 														15 		5,920

================
[Riparian Buffer Seed Mix.pdf]
Third Creek Riparian Buffer Seed Mix

% 	COMMON NAME 		SCIENTIFIC NAME
10 	Red Top 		Agrostis alba
15 	Virginia Wild Rye 	Elymus virginicus
15 	Switchgrass 		Panicum virgatum
5 	Gamma grass 		Tripsicum dactyloides
5 	Pink Knotweed 		Polygonum pennsylvanicum
5 	Little Bluestem 	Schizachyrium scoparium
5 	Softrush 		Juncus effusus
10 	Fox sedge 		Carex vulpinoidea
10 	Lanceleaf Tickseed 	Coreopsis lanceolata
10 	Deer Tongue 		Panicum clandestinum
5 	Big Bluestem 		Andropogon gerardii
5 	Indiangrass 		Sorgastrum nutans
100

Also -- looking back through those lists, silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) isn't on them, nor are some other riparian shrubs I'd expect to have been planted. But I did see the dogwood at the site, so I suspect there's an additional list they didn't send me of streamside shrub plantings, which would add several hundred (or possibly several thousand) additional plants, and 3-5 additional species, to the total.

I went down there again this morning, and walked nearly the whole length of the site. Damn. They have done a huge amount of work, and there is a ton of plantings. And the stream profile, far from being lain to waste, looks to my admittedly uneducated eye to be quite healthy -- long deep pools, with some big rocks, punctuated by a number of riffles where they've dumped smooth gravel and pebbles.

And to show how well managed this project is, they actually sub-contracted an invasive species removal contractor. (I ran into them as I was leaving).

I'm starting to beat a dead horse here, but it sort of yanks my chain that no matter how professionally and responsibly local government undertakes some initiative or performs its duties, there is a loud contingent that will jump all over its ass with accusations of incompetence or out and out corruption.

Did they get rid of the millhouse/pumphouse ruins? I see no evidence of them in the pictures.

I can't remember exactly where it was, but I didn't see it. I have a vague recollection that it was torn down 5-10 years ago -- I remember some talk about it back then, at least.

I haven't been able to get to the greenway since the renovations. Did they get rid of the millhouse/pumphouse ruins? I see no evidence of them in the pictures.

The Hill Online

Calm down, Mykhailo, Calm down! I appreciate your research and your concern; but lets get it straight, no one has suggested that the project involved incompetence or out and out corruption. Again, the restoration of the Sutherland Ave channel is certainly an improvement. Unfortunately, they did not clear the underbrush from the east side of the greenway where single males pair up for brief walks behind the bush. And, definitely work needed to be done on the lower portion of the creek to remove the fallen trees that collected trash. Along with others, I have spent quite a few hours collected trash from the creek and the surrounding floodplain.

My concern has to do with the changed nature of the area below the railroad. For some of us, who were not there to identify trees, it was a quiet place where we could enjoy the solitude. I basically agree with Jack Neely; I’m enclosing the link to his article in Metro Pulse: (link...) .

To answer Redmondkr’s question, as I recall, the remains were there when I last traveled the greenway last year. They were located just upstream of the footbridge and as you can see they are no longer there.