The History of Katharine Ordway
Natural History Study Area,
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota
Kelly
M. Paulson
(This
history was written by Kelly in 2001 as her Honors Project)
Abstract
The history of the Katharine Ordway Natural
History Study Area (KONHSA), explains the development of a 278-acre preserve in
Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota, owned and managed by Macalester College. The
land contains many rare plant species and community types. Since its purchase
in 1967, it has been a place of education, research, a tool for outreach, as
well as a source of debate and frustration. The various uses and degree of
success of KONHSA have been greatly influenced by the individuals involved with
it; therefore, this is largely a history of people and the evolution of
Environmental Studies at Macalester College.
"There is a little piece of the globe which is Macalester’s
in a very special way. It is not too well-known by the Mac’s [sic]
themselves, the very people for whom it should be a matter of interest and pride.
This is partly because it is hidden away and partly because we have not given
publicity to it.”
--Richard J. Christman, Mac Weekly 24 January 1972
“The history of the area was bumpy…it’s kind of a bumpy
tenure that the area had. And you don’t really hear much about Ordway
anymore, near as I can tell. No one really talks about it any more.”
--Edward Hill, interview March 2001
“We can chart our future clearly and wisely only when we
know the path which has led to the present.”
--Adlai Stevenson, speech in Richmond, Virginia, 20 September 1952
Author’s
Preface: Methods, Documentation, and Acknowledgements
The information in this
paper comes from a variety of sources. A patchy archive, dedicated to
information about the Katharine Ordway Natural History Study Area, exists in a
file drawer in the Environmental Studies Office. The Development Office
provided a file of papers that were largely related to exchanges of money and
land acquisitions. Janet Ebaugh acquired a folder from Shelley Shreffler,
which had a variety of documents. Finally, Macalester College itself has
an archive located in the DeWitt Wallace Library, where I pored over newspaper
clippings, college publications, and college course catalogs. Even with
all these archival documents put together, however, it was difficult to create
an accurate picture of the history of this area without consulting primary
sources. (I did learn from this crash course in archival work that
sometimes holes in the archives speak for themselves; for example, a period
with few records probably corresponds to a period that no one thought Ordway
was important, or at least not important enough to save any documentation
about.)
The following people were
instrumental as primary sources, whether they were formally interviewed or were
useful as consultants to help give the project direction:[1] Richard Christman,[2] Mark Davis,[3] Janet Ebaugh,[4] Carol Gersmehl,[5] Alexander Hill,[6] Edward Hill,[7] Daniel Hornbach,[8] Deborah Kervliet,[9] Sharron Nelson,[10] Patty Pfalz,[11] Aldemaro Romero,[12] Shelley Shreffler,[13] David Southwick,[14] James Stewart,[15] and Elizabeth Svenson.[16] It is also important to recognize that not all the endnotes
in this paper are dedicated to citations only. Endnotes will occasionally
reward the persistent reader with juicy details that simply couldn’t find a
place in the body of the text. The appendices contain copies of some of
the more interesting documents in Ordway’s history. Most of them are mentioned
in the paper, but it is nevertheless interesting to see them in their
entirety. Figures, including maps and charts, referred to in the text are
found in the Environmental Studies Office, Olin Rice 249, Macalester College.
I must also emphasize that
this is not the whole story. Even with all the documents and interviews
that went into the creation of this project, there are still stories left
untold by this paper, and more to be written in the future. However, with
the materials I had, I attempted to be as fair and objective as possible, and I
feel that this paper quite accurately reflects the story thus far, and
hopefully it can be used to chart the direction of Ordway’s future.
Introduction
The Katharine Ordway Natural
History Study Area (often abbreviated as KONHSA or Ordway) is a 278-acre[17] parcel of land
owned by Macalester College. Ordway is located in Inver Grove Heights,
just south of Saint Paul, on the Mississippi River. Beginning in the
1950’s, with the rise of ecology and environmental issues, Macalester College
was keeping its collective eyes peeled for the possibility of acquiring a field
station for the purpose of study, research, and prestige. In 1967,
Macalester finally realized these dreams, and purchased approximately 276 acres.
Since then, this land has been variously used, misused, and forgotten.
Ordway has been a source of some reputation: Macalester is one of only four
liberal arts colleges in Minnesota, and the only college in the Twin Cities, to
boast a field station.[18]
Thousands of people have used the area for education, recreation, and
research. On the other hand, the area has occasionally been a thorn in
the side of faculty, administrators, benefactresses and benefactors, and
caretakers.
I have researched the history of the Katharine Ordway Natural
History Area from the time it was a mere dream to the present. I will
attempt, in this paper, not to present a comprehensive tome of all the
documents and correspondence relating to KONHSA, but to provide a picture of
how Ordway evolved, and how it fits in to the evolution of Macalester College
in particular.
The
Land
Native Americans, probably of
the Mound Builders group (sometimes known as the Dakota), once occupied the
land that we now know as Ordway.[19] Near present-day Ordway is an
area called Pine Bend, where archeological research by the University of
Minnesota has discovered Native American artifacts, and it appears that there
was a culture along the river that was quite dependent on the native mussel
populations for food and other uses.[20]
In 1852, the townships of Inver
Grove Heights and Rosemount were settled, mostly by European immigrants of
German and Irish heritage.[21]
With the arrival of European settlers, the impact on the land changed
drastically. From 1850-1870, it was used mostly for mixed subsistence
farming.[22]
However, it soon became valuable property for rail transportation as well as
residences.[23]
By 1871, according to the plat book of that year, two railroad lines, the
Chicago Rock Island and Pacific Railroad and the Chicago and North Western
Railway were already criss-crossing the land that is now Ordway.[24],[25] These railroad
lines are still there and still carry trains through the land.[26]
Nearer the road, according to Richard Christman, there was once an electric
passenger streetcar line that was put in after WWI, about 1923, and which
was abandoned in 1929 because of the stock market crash. This streetcar
went from St. Paul to Hastings and was evidently destined to continue to
Rochester, although that portion of the line was never completed. In
fact, when the driveway at Ordway was blacktopped, they found a culvert buried
under the drive that had been used under the old streetcar rails.[27]
The
land has been grazed, cultivated, and harvested. At one time (probably in
the first half of the 20th century) the land was “a holding area for
shipping cattle to slaughterhouses in St. Paul…30-35 years ago you could see
remnants of the old holding pens out there.[28]” In 1919, the Rand family
purchased the land, and after Mr. Rand’s death, the Hulmes purchased the land.[29] Both of
these owners[30]
used the land for cattle grazing and small-scale farming, and there was also a
Boy Scout camp
established by Mr. Rand on the property in the first half of the 1900’s.[31][32],
According to Christman, the Hulmes harvested the watercress that grew
near the spring[33][34]
down by River Lake and brought it into the city on a truck to sell to
restaurants and at the farmer’s market.[35] In the 1950’s, the land was
incorporated into Inver Grove Heights, and the increased taxes made farming
even more impractical.[36]
In 1965, the City of Inver Grove Heights was formed.[37]
In 1967, Macalester College
purchased the parcel from the Hulmes.[38] Since the Macalester purchase, the land has been equally
subject to human-effected changes, but this time with a different intent.
According to Christman, several prairie burns targeted at sumac control were
performed with the cooperation of the Inver Grove Heights Fire Department in
the 1970’s.[39] From 1981-1997,
most of the land was burned several times. An intensive property-wide
sumac clearance project took place in 1988, and prairie seeds were sown in
several areas as recently as 1990.[40]
The current Katharine Ordway
Natural History Study Area is a nearly 280-acre parcel of land including at
least four distinct types of plant communities and frontage on the Mississippi
River. According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’s Natural
Heritage Program, the area encompassed by Ordway now contains diverse native
plant communities, such as a dry prairie, an oak woodland-brushland, mesic
prairie, and a black ash swamp.[41] Several plant species that are endangered, threatened, or
of special concern have also found a haven on the Ordway property, including
tall nut-rush (Scleria triglomerata),[42] tick-trefoil (Desmodium
illinoense),[43] tubercled rein-orchid (Platanthera flava),[44] kitten-tails (Besseya
bullii),[45] and lilia-leaved twayblade (Liparis lilfolia).[46] According to Aldemaro Romero, “The area has been noted by the DNR
as being the highest area of biodiversity for the entire [Dakota] County,[47]” and Elizabeth Svenson called Ordway “a jewel, it’s really a
gem…it’s got one of the nicest remnant prairies in the Metro Area.[48],[49]” Figures 1-5 are
various graphic representations of Ordway, including air photos from different
periods of the 20th century, a topographic map, and a hand-drawn
map; these are useful for visualizing the change through time as well as the
geography of the area.
The topography and geology
of the area were influenced greatly by the last great glaciation, which ended
about 10,000 years ago. The Mississippi River valley was carved out by
the floods resulting from the melting glaciers, and most of the regional soils
are glacial till. The bedrock geology of southeastern Minnesota consists
of Paleozoic marine shale and near-shore sandstone deposits,[50] and the larger surficial boulders that dot the Ordway property
are also a result of what the melting glaciers left behind.[51] There are a few temporary ponds and wetland areas at
Ordway, as well as Pratt Pond, which contains water year-round. Indeed, for a
relatively small area, KONHSA boasts a great variety of different types of
landscape, which makes it an interesting template for educational and research
purposes.
Ordway has frontage on River
Lake, a 110-acre,[52] shallow backwater lake
of the Mississippi River, and Macalester owns the peninsula that projects out
between the lake and its river. River Lake, once known as Kellerman’s
Slough,[53],[54] used to be even more shallow before the dam was built near
Hastings, when the water level was raised by about three feet.[55] Currently, River Lake is at most three to four feet deep,
mostly silted in, and full of carp but with little other aquatic life such as
mussels. [56] Macalester College also owns the
peninsula that juts out into the Mississippi to create River Lake. This
peninsula is, during wet seasons, an island, and is essentially always an
island in many ways since it is isolated and has very rarely been ventured
onto.
In the late 1980’s there was
a mayfly hatch on River Lake and in the nearby river; mayflies are indicators
of good water quality, and a hatch like that one hadn’t happened since the
1960’s. One such hatch occurred in 1966, during the Wabasha Steamboat
Days carnival. The results of this “indicator of river health” were
disastrous (and disgusting, probably) for carnival-goers: “By 11 p.m., six
inches of squirming insects covered the carousel. 45 minutes later,
mayflies clogged the radiators of the diesel-powered generators, and the
carnival shut down.[57]” Studies of
mayflies in the Mississippi from 1958-69 found that the critters were conspicuously
absent from the Twin Cities all the way south to Lake Pepin due to the sewage
inflow from the Twin Cities. With the advent of better and more sewage
treatment plants, the mayfly population increased, and the summer (June-August)
of 1986 witnessed 22 large mayfly hatches on the upper stretches of the river.
The naturalist at Ordway in the
mid-1980’s, David Clugston, found more evidence of the improving health of the
Mississippi River:
Just
this year [1987] I found a beaver lodge on the end of that peninsula and also
some giant floater [mussels], which aren’t supposed to be here because of the
water quality. Those are hopeful signs that the water quality is
improving, but we have a long way to go. With the waste-treatment plant
five miles upriver and 3M Chemolite downstream and a refinery upstream and one
downstream, this isn’t the healthiest stretch of the river. Everything
that comes from the Twin Cities finds a resting spot here.[58]
The presence of the river
and the backwater lake, plus the peninsula, all make the geography of KONHSA
and its potential that much more interesting.
“The Lady Who Saved the Prairies”--and
her brother
We must take a few pages to
introduce the woman who made this story possible: Katharine Ordway, a great
figure in the history of American land conservation.
Katharine Ordway was born 3
April 1899 to Lucius Pond and Jessie Gilman Ordway. She was their only
daughter, and the second youngest of five children. At the time of her
birth, her 37-year old father was already on his way to fortune working for a
plumbing and heating firm, of which he eventually became President. By
1905, he was nearly a millionaire. Together with a friend, he bought
sixty percent of the stock of a struggling mining company, Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing (now more commonly known as 3M), which went on to multiply his
millions.[59]
Growing up in St. Paul, MN,
Katharine enjoyed the sea of tallgrass prairie that still existed at that time,
and was saddened to watch the prairie slowly disappear over her lifetime.
She attended the University of Minnesota, and graduated cum laude with degrees
in Botany and Art. Katharine Ordway also attended Yale Medical School
before dropping the idea of a medical career. Later in her life, she went
to Columbia University to study biology and land-use planning.[60] Her studies are early indications of her interests in
ecology and land conservation.
When her father died in
1948, she and her four brothers, including Richard Ordway, were left an $18.8
million estate.[61] Finally, in her
50’s and 60’s, she had the resources to reinforce her beliefs in land
protection, and eventually became one of the greatest private contributors to
natural area conservation in American history, second only to John D. Rockefeller,
Jr.[62] Katharine was
described by a friend as a quiet, delicate woman—“a bird fallen out of the
nest.[63]” She was a
reserved woman, and modest: the fact that she was the donor who helped the
Nature Conservancy purchase the large Konza Prairie reserve in Kansas was not
revealed until after her death. Katharine Ordway donated money that
ultimately helped to save over 31,000 acres of Great Plains prairies[64] (as well as land in other parts of the country). Alexander
Hill, who knows the Ordway family quite well, said that Katharine Ordway was a
very “forward-looking person” with respect to her early sense of need for land
preservation.[65] According to
Christman’s understanding, she was quite frail and weak towards the end of her
life, when she came to visit her namesake in Minnesota.[66] She died in 1979.[67]
The Ordway-Macalester
Connection
Richard Ordway, Katharine’s
brother, served as a Trustee of Macalester during the era when members of all
of St. Paul’s high-profile families sat on the Board.[68] As a major stockholder in his father’s 3M corporation,
Ordway fit right in. Richard was a highly educated man, having attended
St. Paul Academy and then Yale. During the 1960’s, he was a prominent
member (and often, the chairman) of countless organizations and committees in
the Twin Cities, and in 1961 he was elected Chair of Macalester’s Development
Council (which was founded in 1956, and had already raised $11,114,787 in its
first five years).[69] Ultimately,
Richard was the one to request a donation to Macalester from his sister.
Richard Ordway’s daughter,
Pondie Nicholson, followed her father on Macalester’s Board of Trustees, along
with her husband, and they were followed by their son, Ford Nicholson, who is
currently a Trustee at Macalester and also an alumnus. According to Hill,
the Ordways continue to have a “very strong” relationship with Macalester.[70]
In the Beginning
(1966-1970)
Optimism and a sense of
common, lofty goals for a field station characterized the early years
surrounding the acquisition of Ordway. The newly emerging field of
ecology and the realization that land preservation is important coincided with
a generous gift from Katharine Ordway, making the initial land purchase
possible, as well as providing for a healthy endowment to keep the area
running. The Biology department and Macalester College as a whole
believed in the necessity and utility of such a natural history area, for
students from Macalester, other ACTC schools, and local elementary and
secondary schools. The area was also considered useful for research.[71] However, the blind optimism of these proposals and the lack
of any real management plan, combined with the excitement of acquisition, would
eventually lead to politics and infighting regarding some of these unresolved
issues.
An Early Proposal
Although some sources say
that Macalester was hunting for a field station since the 1950’s,[72] the first tangible and dated evidence of Macalester’s desire to
do so is “A Proposal to the Charles F. Kettering Foundation for a Field Biology
Laboratory for Macalester College,” from 21 November 1966.[73] This five-page proposal aims to secure funding for a field
station, and begins by citing the growing need for ecology and environmental
study, especially in a college in a metro area. Then it hints that “the
college now, fortunately, has an opportunity to purchase 278 acres of land that
meet all the needs of a field biology laboratory,” and goes on to describe the
unique habitats which characterize this site.
“Ownership of the land and a
grant for its development and use will put Macalester into the forefront of
colleges in this increasingly important field,” the proposal predicts.
More lofty goals and predictions follow: “students will be able to do field work
as a regular part of their course requirements and faculty members will be able
to carry on meaningful research in environmental biology,” and predicts that
“about 350 Macalester students would use the field laboratory each year.”
It also foresees the opportunity and necessity for shared use with “five other
private liberal arts colleges” (the ACTC schools) and “elementary and secondary
schools.” The proposal dedicates an entire section to the possible ways
that a field station could contribute to new and improved teaching and research
methods at all levels, including a better ability to train teachers-to-be
graduating from Macalester, which could make the school “a pace-setter among
colleges in teaching and research in environmental biology.” Finally, the
proposal requests a grant of $300,000 over two years in order to “purchase the
land and bring it into development and use,” adding that the Foundation would
be kept abreast of the use of the area.[74]
This is clearly an
optimistic proposal; however, some of its predictions were indeed proven
correct in the decade that followed. Apparently, this proposal did not
secure any funds from the Kettering Foundation, since there is no further
mention of the foundation in the archives and funding was ultimately secured
elsewhere. This document is useful, however, since it sets forth many
standards for Macalester’s treatment of a field station.
Acquisition
It is not every day an
institution has an opportunity to buy such a vast acreage with such a variety
of ecotypes, so the hopes for a field station were not easily dashed.
Before the Kettering proposal was complete, John W. Seale, the College’s
General Secretary, had already spoken with Richard Ordway,[75] the brother of Katharine Ordway and a trustee at
Macalester. A letter from Seale states that Richard had asked his sister
if
she [Katharine Ordway] would make a gift to Macalester, and she indicated that
she would. He further stated that he was going to write to her that
evening and tell her that President [Harvey] Rice and Al Cole [on the Executive
Committee of the Reader’s Digest Association] would be in touch with her about
a gift possibility…Dr. Rice wrote to her at once.[76]
In fact, President Rice
wrote to Miss Ordway that very day.[77] Evidently, his letter was effective, since less than a year
later President Harvey M. Rice was writing to Miss Ordway at a hotel in Tucson,
this time to thank her “very, very much” for her offer of $150,000 to purchase
275 acres of land. According to this correspondence, it appears that
Ordway had agreed to send $5,000 immediately in order to get an option on the
land “and set the necessary steps in motion to purchase it and plan the steps
for its use as soon as we can obtain it.[78]”
On 13 February 1967, a memo
from President Rice landed on the desks of Dr. Edwin J. Robinson, Jr. (Biology
Department Chair), Mr. John Dozier (VP of Financial Affairs at Macalester), Dr.
Lucius Garvin (Executive VP of Macalester), Dr. L. Daniel Frenzel, Jr.
(Biology), and Professor James Albert Jones (Biology). This memo made
known Katharine Ordway’s grant to Macalester to purchase land for a field
station. The land, Rice said, had been selected by members of the Biology
Department as suitable for its laboratory and conservation potential; President
Rice called the budding field station a “great new facility,[79]” and even signed the memo in purple pen; clearly the mood of the
day (if the color of ink is an appropriate indication) was excitement and
anticipation.
Less than two months later,
on 3 April 1967, a deed was transferred from J.W. and Ruth E. Hulme to
Macalester College.[80] This represented
the birth of Macalester’s 276-acre natural history area. Thanks to the
$150,000 gift from Katharine Ordway and a later matching donation by DeWitt and
Lila Wallace (DeWitt of Reader’s Digest fortune), plus about $4,500 from Thomas
Savage (the son of Louise Savage, whose father had been a trustee at Macalester
and was of the Cochran family,[81] another big donor family and namesake of Cochran Lounge in the
recently demolished Student Union), the area had the funds and endowment that
it needed according to the original proposal to the Kettering Foundation.
The Wallace donation was
part of a larger College fundraising campaign known as the “Challenge Campaign,”
which began in 1963 when DeWitt and Lila offered Macalester $10 million if
Macalester could raise an equal amount in ten years. In fact, President
Robinson was able to announce the campaign’s successful end over a year
early—in less than nine years they had come up with $10,048,751 from 10,858
alumni and friends of the college. Thanks to the nearly $40 million
ultimately raised by this campaign (including matching funds), Macalester built
a dozen new major buildings on campus (including Olin and Rice, the Janet
Wallace Fine Arts Center, the stadium, the chapel, and others) and Robinson,
obviously touched by the spirit of giving, said at the campaign celebration
“the academic program is richer by…a host of supporting facilities and programs
from the 280-acre Katharine Ordway Natural History Study Area along the
Mississippi River.[82]” Everything was
coming up roses for Macalester, and for Ordway by extension, in those first
years.
Gratitude and Naming
How to show gratitude for
such a generous gift? Since so many buildings and rooms on campus are
named after prominent donors, it makes consistent sense that Macalester would
name the new natural history area after one of America’s greatest conservation
supporters, financially speaking. Before a name was decided upon, a good
deal of correspondence was exchanged between Macalester and Katharine Ordway.
Eddie Hill, Biology,
remembers writing a thank you letter to Katharine Ordway, on the very
typewriter that still sits in the Biology student reading room: “I remember
typing that thing about three times, because it had to be perfect…couldn’t have
any strikeovers, no white-outs, no erasures. But I finally got it typed.[83]” Obviously, it was important to please Katharine Ordway and
make it known that Macalester was grateful for her generosity.
President Rice wrote to
Katharine Ordway on 12 May 1967, thanking her profusely for her “wonderful gift
of 500 shares of Minnesota Mining stock.” Rice goes on to overuse the
adjective “wonderful,” which ultimately becomes a bit patronizing. The
letter closes by asking Ordway if the college might name “this wonderful
acquisition the Katharine Ordway Field Laboratory of Macalester College?[84]”
Evidently the usually shy and self-effacing Katharine Ordway decided to allow
the land to be christened in her honor,[85] since on 6 June 1967
President Rice wrote to Katharine Ordway thanking her for her letter (of 1
June) in which she had indicated that
we may give your name to our wonderful outdoor biology and conservation area
which you have made possible for us! We shall call it the Katharine
Ordway Natural History Study Area of Macalester College.This will give it a
distinction and a definition, and at the same time an identification that I
hope will be as pleasing to you as it has to us.[86]
And so it was, or nearly so;
the name did undergo some streamlining, and today it is known as the Katharine
Ordway Natural History Study Area, or the equally unwieldy KONHSA, or the most
common on-campus vernacular name: Ordway.[87]
Publicity
On 14 May 1967, an article
appeared in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune with the headline “Macalester Buys 276
Acres of Land.[88]” The next day’s
edition of the St. Paul Pioneer Press reported that Macalester had purchased
only 272 acres in Inver Grove Heights Township. Let’s chalk this up to
Twin City rivalry, and not worry about the numbers, although this time we are
loath to admit that Minneapolis got it right. The Pioneer Press went into
somewhat greater detail, however, reporting that the site included “a 60-acre
lake, a half mile of frontage on the Mississippi river [sic], a flood plain
forest, an oak forest, several acres of prairie land, several ponds, two
springs, and a marsh.” The article further stated that Edwin J. Robinson,
then Chair of the Biology Department, predicted the site would be used “by
about 350 students a year for field study,[89]” the same figure cited in the Kettering proposal.
The 1967-1968 Macalester
College course catalog mentioned KONHSA in the description of the Biology
Department, calling it a “newly-acquired 270-acre[90] field biology teaching area near the campus, where teachers and
students have ready access to natural aquatic and terrestrial habitats adapted
to ecological study.[91]” Since this
description was written before Ordway had really been used by any classes, it
is rather vague and noncommittal, yet it does sound quite optimistic.
The August 1967 edition of
the Macalester Report shouted “College Acquires a Field Laboratory” on
the front page, enthusiastically but a few months too late. It calls
Ordway a “long-sought biology laboratory…the finest for its intended use of any
that the Biology Department has inspected since its search for such a facility
began five years ago.[92]” This orgy of positive publicity and goodwill was
short-lived, albeit flattering; the politeness and PR were quickly usurped by
internal and external politics.
Early Disagreements Regarding Ordway
While the initial proposals
and mission statements contained therein were full of ideas and optimism, they
were notably lacking realistic plans of how the area would be managed by the
college. One early example of the problem created by this lack of
planning is illustrated by the following exchange of memos. In June 1967,
John Dozier wrote a memo to Dr. E.J. Robinson, in which he first thanks him for
a tour of the area, then quickly gets down to the real reason he was writing to
the Biology Department Chair: “to suggest the pro forma concept of operation
for this property which I feel that we should follow.” Dozier continues:
There seems to me to be no
reason to set up any separate committee or administrative hierarchy to deal
with the Field Station operation. It seems clear that the program is a
natural extension of the Biology Department, and that therefore all
administrative matters should be handled by the department chairman and his
staff.
After stating this, he goes
on to recommend that Ordway’s maintenance should go directly through Physical
Plant, as would any on-campus facility, and that they should “work out an
estimated annual operating budget at an early date.[93]” This certainly seems like a good idea, especially in
retrospect. This memo also started a tradition of the Biology Department
having some management power, but very little responsibility for the upkeep of
the area.
A few weeks later, a memo
was sent from President Rice to Dozier, mentioning a memo from Dr. Garvin sent
two weeks earlier, which has since disappeared. At any rate, President
Rice seemed concerned about the operation of Ordway; more specifically, who was
responsible for overseeing this. President Rice asked Dozier to arrange a
mini-think tank with some other faculty members in order to develop a workable
plan for the operation of Ordway before school started again in September:
“since this activity and the grant which makes it possible are both pioneering
ventures on our part in many respects, perhaps we had better formalize our
understandings about the project and work out arrangements and procedures satisfactory
to all concerned.[94]” Clearly a great
deal of the problem had arisen from miscommunications or a complete failure to
communicate between academic departments and administrative offices.
Unfortunately, it appears by this example that many such disagreements about
how to best run KONHSA were in place before the field station was even fully
operational.
Nearly a year later, on 1 May
1968, Dr. E.J. Robinson wrote a memo to Dan Frenzel regarding a proposal to
supervise Ordway as a committee. He begins coldly:
I
have explained to you, to no avail, that the administrative decision had long
since been made that the area will be administered by the Biology Department,
through the chairman [him/myself]…[I] believe that this department is in an
especially good position in being solely responsible for the use of the area.
This would not preclude a committee within the department. However, I do
not choose to delegate the responsibility I have in this matter…In the
meantime, I retain the responsibility for the use of the area.[95]
On
the same day, Robinson wrote a memo complaining to Dean Kenneth Goodrich, which
opens,
FYI, in case some complaint should come to
you. Dan is continuously irritated that there is not a director
(presumably, he thinks it would be him) and a committee to operate the Ordway
Natural History Area like a full-blown, independent field station…No one else
in the department has supported Dan’s repeated demands that a special committee
be set up. Three of [sic] the six biology faculty have no particular
interest in the area, anyway, and don’t care how it is managed[96]…Dan has been
consistent in NOT offering any suggestions for the development and use of the
area, other than that a committee should be created. It is quite possible
that his prolonged irritation in not having his way in this matter will bring
him to you.[97]
This is just one more specific
example of the bickering that surrounded the area’s early history. This
also marks some of the first documented evidence of referring to Ordway as “the
area,” which always seems to carry some resentful connotations. These
early disagreements seem to have inaugurated a tradition of miscommunication
and passing the buck when it came to Ordway’s management responsibilities.
First-Year Usage
Despite the aforementioned
disputes over how to run Ordway, Biology Professor Dr. James Albert Jones[98] was named the first Director of Ordway. In the spring of
1967, even before the final boundaries and purchase arrangements had been made,
there were about 85 Introductory Biology students using Ordway for lab
studies. In the summer of 1967, two seniors carried out independent
research projects on River Lake. During the 1967-68 academic year,
over 770 Macalester students alone passed through KONHSA, in Introductory
Biology labs, Field Zoology, Botany, Ecology, or as independent researchers.[99] This was an impressive turnout for the first year of a new
station that was not even fully furnished and was allegedly plagued by
management problems. It is also quite indicative of the enthusiasm and
initiative of faculty and students regarding the potential of Ordway, and it is
certainly impressive that E.J. Robinson’s press-worthy prediction of 350
students a year was more than doubled in the first year.
A building with an apartment
and a lab was built on the Ordway property in 1969. According to Biology
Professor Eddie Hill, the building at Ordway was originally built to serve as a
place for people to stay for a few nights; however, its practicality as a field
station was actually compromised by its proximity to Macalester.[100] In
some ways, this is a problem that has continually plagued Ordway—it is just far
enough away to be forgotten about, but not far enough away to seem as precious
a resource as it really is.
However, the distance from
Macalester did necessitate a position of Resident Naturalist, or Caretaker, or
Assistant Director—by any name, this was a staff person who lived at Ordway and
organized lab and class visits to the area. This has always been a rather
undervalued position. “The people who were the caretakers, if you want to
call them that, were in essence actually the directors—but they were called
caretakers—they actually lived out there, and the reason was to keep vandalism at
a minimum.[101]” Of
course, it is quite a job for one person to oversee nearly 280 acres (without
fences or many boundary markers) plus the river frontage where it is difficult
to control outside access. The first person to move into the Ordway
building and the Resident Naturalist position was a Biology instructor by the
name of Miss Joan A. Sims.[102]
The summer of ’69, the first
summer of full operation for Ordway, saw enthusiasm and interest pour in, again
overshadowing the various quarrels regarding Ordway’s management.
Professor Jones carefully documented the utilization and overtures of
interest. In March, an announcement went out to all faculty regarding the
opportunity for nineteen student research fellowships at the area, which
promised to provide both the students and the faculty with a healthy stipend.[103] A
Scout leader wrote Professor Jones expressing interest in visiting the area to
fulfill badge requirements.[104] A teacher from Monroe Junior/Senior High School in St. Paul
wrote Jones to thank him for hosting his students for a weekend, gushing:
“Never have I, in the seven years that I have been teaching biology, observed
the excited responses and behavior on the part of senior high school students
that I did observe this past weekend.[105]” One imagines that enthusiasm and utilization of the area
must have been high those first years, probably thanks to its novelty (and the
relative novelty of ecology as a discipline) and the publicity Ordway
received. Also in 1969, Ordway hosted elementary teachers for a summer
institute in field biology. Jones’s report also mentioned that the field
station was received with interest and favor in Inver Grove Heights—from groups
as diverse as the PTA, bird-watching clubs, and Boy Scout troops.[106]
Suggestions were already
being made by Jones for improving the area, such as interpretive nature trails,
a pontoon boat and small riverside lab, provision for a full-time caretaker plus
a half-time employee dedicated to the management and direction of Ordway, the maintenance
of a sizable budget, and even the possibility of a Sunday movie program.[107]
Indeed, a pontoon boat was purchased in 1970[108] and trails and guides were created in the 1970’s.[109]
However, the budget was taken for granted, and attempts to interest Macalester
students in non-academic activities at Ordway (i.e. movie nights) have
historically failed, as have attempts at creating anything permanent near River
Lake (i.e. riverside labs) due to the impossibility of surveillance of that
area, distant as it is from the main building. And despite the foresight
on the part of Jones that it would take more than one person’s dedication to
effectively run KONHSA, the staffing of Ordway has not changed fundamentally
since the original creation of the Resident Naturalist position. The
irony is that these suggestions were made over 30 years ago, when morale and
money were high around KONHSA, and only some of them have been truly realized.
Budget
In recent years, Macalester
College has been touted for its hefty endowment. However, Macalester
didn’t always have the luxury of throwing money around and building new
buildings right and left.[110] The KONHSA Field Lab Fund report, from January, 1969, does
reflect a bit of this careless attitude towards money. An initial
investment by Katharine Ordway of $145,768.57 was matched by Mr. Wallace.
After numerous disbursements, including the purchase of the property itself,
construction and furnishing of the building, a Chevrolet to shuttle students to
and from the station, electric and utilities, and legal fees, there was still
over $90,000 left. This total does not even include the nearly $5,000
donated by Mrs. Louise Savage which had been designated for the acquisition of
adjoining lands, which is mentioned almost as an afterthought.[111] This
inattentive attitude towards the use of the KONHSA budget would later be
regretted, especially as Macalester ran into tough financial times in the
1970’s.
Professor Jones was not only
busy with the direction of Ordway, but he was also doing some PR work with
donors. In October of 1969, Professor Jones wrote to Thomas Savage,
thanking him and his mother for their contribution to Ordway in excess of
$4,500 contribution to Ordway. He stressed the importance of increasing
the area’s size, since 3,000 (!) students (including college and elementary
students) had used it in its first year, and that number was bound to
increase (although this prediction turns out to be sadly mistaken).[112]
Professor Jones also wrote to Katharine Ordway herself in February of 1970 to
keep her abreast of Ordway’s usage. He mentioned that a pontoon houseboat
had been purchased for use as a research vessel at Ordway, and he also hinted
that he hoped Katharine Ordway would be able to come see the area that
summer. Jones also suggested that more land be purchased and a full-time
naturalist be hired. For this latter position he suggested a chemist
(part owner of a chemical company)/ornithologist who was about to retire;
however, he does imply that this position would be short term and would only
last a year or two.[113] The
first part of his prediction was right: the man hired to fill this position was
a chemist by occupation and a bird lover by all other description.
Regarding the length of the appointment, however, Jones’s estimate was way off,
probably to the benefit of KONHSA.[114]
The Christman Era
(1970-1982)
The lofty goals set forth
during the late 1960’s were written in a context that could not have
anticipated the financial crisis Macalester would encounter in the
1970’s. Macalester College itself was lucky to survive this monetary
drought, say nothing about the survival of Ordway during this decade.
Ordway’s ability to pull through this period of neglect was very much due to the
dedication and hard work of the Resident Naturalist at Ordway during these
years.
Enter Richard Christman
The period from fall 1970 to
the spring of 1986 was very much characterized by the presence of one man:
Richard J. Christman, who was the Resident Naturalist and Caretaker of KONHSA,
and sometimes its only advocate, throughout these 16 years. Christman had
been an employee in the Macalester Chemistry Department from 1961-1963.[115] From
July 1970 to August of 1984, Christman dutifully wrote detailed Quarterly
Reports discussing things that had been done and things that needed to be done
at KONHSA; these reports also contained carefully recorded visitor
censuses. The story reflected in these reports becomes something of an
allegory for this period itself: these reports progressively became shorter as
he had less to say and began to realize that no one was really reading them,
and eventually terminated in great frustration.[116] Which begs the question, who was responsible for
reading these reports? Considering the souring relationship between
Macalester and Ordway and the even more bitter financial situation of the
College during these years, there was very little one man (however dedicated)
could do.
It is important to
understand what Christman is like, as he is a very influential force in the
story of Ordway’s history. Perhaps the best way for one to get a picture
of Christman is through a few short vignettes from others who met him and
worked with him; but first, the facts. Christman got his degree in Chemistry
at the University of Illinois. He taught in the Chemistry Departments at
Macalester and at Hamline University.[117] In 1976 he described himself as somewhere between 40 and 60
years old,[118] which
makes him between 65 and 85 now. He still drives the red Volkswagen
Rabbit that Shelley Shreffler remembered seeing at Ordway in the 1980’s.
He was married and had three children. He ended up working at Ordway
largely due to a happy coincidence of timing; he knew Al Jones from his
previous employment at Macalester, and at the time that Jones was seeking
someone to live in the new building and steward the land, Christman’s youngest
daughter was finishing college and he felt free to take the opportunity.
He lived at Ordway during the week, and if his weekend was free of commitments
there he would return to St. Paul to live with his wife at their home on
Wellesley Street until she passed away in 1975.[119] These are all the biographical facts Christman would
disclose to anyone; he, like Katharine Ordway, is a rather modest individual.
Modest though he may be,
Christman has left quite an impression on everyone who has met or worked with
him. According to Daniel Hornbach,[120] Christman was a slightly eccentric man with “long, flowing white
hair” who always wore a Greek fisherman’s cap[121] and was always telling stories while an instructor was trying to
teach a lab.[122] Mark
Davis’s[123]
description made me a bit apprehensive about meeting Christman: “He had some
real strengths. There were some personality issues that offended some
people. I always got along with him fine, probably partly because I was
male…[124] but he did
do some wonderful things for Ordway.[125]”
Shelley Shreffler[126] gets the
prize for best reaction when asked about Richard Christman. I innocently
and offhandedly asked her, “Just out of curiosity, did you ever meet Richard
Christman?” She replied “OH…GOD….YES! …I did have the opportunity
to meet him. It was very difficult to meet him.” She said
that several times she looked out the window and noticed a red Volkswagen
Rabbit sitting in the driveway, and an older gentleman standing at the edge of
the drive, apparently birdwatching. She finally figured that the man must
be Christman, and she tried to talk to him several times, but when she
approached he would quickly get in his car and drive off. “Eventually,”
Shreffler said,
I kind of snuck up on
him—practically ambushed him—and made him sit down and talk to me. What I
found out is that he’s very much of a very very old school, a traditionalist,
who didn’t think that a woman should be in the position that I was in, and he
was quite up front about letting me know that he didn’t think I had any
business being in that job. And then it made sense why he was avoiding
me.
Finally, though, Shelley
felt she had won him over, and “He told me stories about some of the people,
the neighbors from when he was there. Then later I had the opportunity to
meet some of the neighbors, and I’d hear lots of stories about Christman.
He has a very interesting place.[127],[128]”
An article in the Mendota
Heights Sun entitled “Hemit [sic] guards a hideaway that’s an Inver Grove Trail
nature study,” introduces Christman candidly and is graced by pictures of him
holding a chickadee and sitting on “his favorite rock.[129]” The word “hemit” in the
headline is not a typo. McKee introduces Christman, by his own
description, as being
somewhere, chronologically, between the ages of 40 and 60, living by the
philosophies of Thoreau and, because of his jocular nature about women’s lib, a
hemit instead of a ‘hermit.’ Seeming to have an opinion on every subject
imaginable and refusing to reveal anything about himself,[130] he looks
very much the hermit type with his long white hair and blue jeans.[131]
In describing what Christman
did at Ordway, McKee wrote “he might be…sitting on his favorite rock taking in
the spectacular view, feeding the birds, watching the white-legged mice that
nest in the bird houses…or taking a walk. He puts in 12 to 15 hours a day,
he said, but which 12 to 15 remains his secret.[132]” Certainly Christman was
working overtime at Ordway, and for less appreciation than he probably
deserved. As he said, everyone wanted his job, but no one wanted his
salary.[133]
The “Ordway Bulletins”
During his tenure at Ordway,
Christman wrote at least 129 “Ordway Bulletins,” all numbered and dated from
1972 to 1985.[134]
These were page-long anecdotes, scientifically related vignettes, or just
prosaic descriptions of the land or the changing seasons at Ordway. Many
people have commented on these and their enjoyment in reading them, even
now. There has been talk of publishing a compilation of them (as well
there should be). Christman said he’d often write these at night,
inspired by something he had seen or experienced at Ordway, and was very modest
about them. When I mentioned how poetic they were, however, he reminded
me of the dangers of anthropomorphizing, saying “I tried to stay away from that
sort of thing [anthropomorphism] in them [the bulletins],” and giving me
examples: “when you see a hawk, you think ‘he,’ right? And when you see
an egret, you think ‘she,’ because it’s graceful and delicate—but actually
they’re very hardy birds.[135]”
At least one of his Bulletins,
entitled “A Death at Ordway,” was published in the Macalester Today
magazine. A bit of a departure from the institutional journalism one
might be accustomed to, he recounts the story of the life and tragic death of
“the lone Box Elder tree [that] stood in the grassland just 125 meters east of
the field lab building.” This is not in the least written with
tongue-in-cheek; it is obvious that Christman sincerely felt a loss when this
tree blew down and “the remains of this important part of the landscape
returned to the earth by the processes which had begun many years before.[136]”
President Davis[137] sent a
memo to Christman in 1977, commending him on his Ordway Bulletin entitled
“Snowbound at Ordway,” and saying that it “immediately conjured up for me some
of the great lines from John Greenleaf Whittier’s epic poem, ‘Snowbound: A
Winter Idyll.’[138]” For
all of Christman’s modesty, it appears that I’m not the only one who finds his
bulletins decidedly poetic.[139]
Visions and Missions for Ordway
Christman was effectively the
Resident Naturalist, the Caretaker, and the Director. In practical terms,
he may well have been the only person associated with Macalester College who
took responsibility for Ordway during this period.[140] Accordingly, he was the only
person with much of a vision for the place.
In November of 1973, someone,
presumably Christman,[141]
gave a presentation to a Teacher’s Workshop entitled “Some Comments on Nature
Establishments.” This sets out something of an informal mission statement
for KONHSA and all similar nature establishments, and also inflates the size of
Ordway to “a little over 280 acres,” which seemed to be a common and convenient
number to “round up” to. Christman began by attempting to define Ordway:
What
is a ‘natural history study area’???By way of definition, natural history is
(or used to be) applied to zoology, botany, mineralogy and similar sciences;
however, it is now commonly restricted to a more or less unsystematic study of
these subjects…In many ways this is a very descriptive title for us although it
is to be hoped that we are not completely UN-systematic about the studies
performed at our study area. Our actual purpose is to provide facilities
as an outdoor laboratory for our Biology Department; at the same time there are
other academic disciplines which can and do make use of the facility:
Geography; Geology; etc. We also encourage, incidentally, our sister
colleges to share in the use of our facilities. Our own college
participates both as class units and as individual independent studies, a
growingly [sic] popular endeavor at Macalester.[142]
This is an excellent summary of
how Ordway was actually used during the period Christman was there, although he
does neglect to mention the (quite prolific) use by community groups and pre-college
students. He then goes on to contrast the stated purpose of a “natural
history study area” with that of a “nature center,” saying “a nature center has
both instruction and entertainment as its raisons d’être. This contrasts
sharply with a natural history study area, whose principal—perhaps only—purpose
is a scientific approach to an understanding of nature in its various
attitudes.[143]”
Claude Welch, Biology
Department Chair from 1969-1978,[144] felt that Ordway was best used to
“study the interrelatedness of living things and how this can be thrown off by
man’s encroachment on the environment.[145]” This is a particularly
appropriate goal for a nature center like Ordway, which is not entirely
pristine and is becoming increasingly swallowed up by the Twin Cities.[146] Welch
and Christman also agreed that Ordway should not be entirely public, or turned
into anything park-like; however, “thay [sic] would like to see the site used
more often by more people as a place to come for environmental education and,
perhaps, just to get away from it all.[147]”
Christman definitely had his
opinions about how the area should be run, and since he was the Ordway
Committee and the Caretaker and the Resident Naturalist all wrapped into one,
he was able to implement his own ideas. The aforementioned article in the
Mendota Heights Sun reads: “There is a list of 13 rules and regulations
regarding the grounds, with most pointing out the fact that every visitor and
project must have the approval of Christman.” Earlier in the article, he
is quoted as saying “If you’ve got a goddamn shotgun or a goddamn snowmobile,
you can’t come in.[148]”
These harsh words appear next to a photo of Christman looking kindly upon a
chickadee resting in his cupped hands, a bird that he first trapped and banded
in 1973 and which returned several times to visit him.[149]
Others in the 1970’s felt that
Ordway was not very useful for much except for education. According to
Eddie Hill, he felt that the
original intent was as a study area. The original intent was to expose
students to ecological principles, like, ‘ok, this is a prairie, this is a
woodland, this is a river, this is what happens in these particular areas, this
is how they look, this is the flora and the fauna that is associated with them
in this particular setting.’ And that’s all it was ever intended—that’s
all it could ever do.[150]
Already, it seems, Macalester
was forgetting about the proposals of the 1960’s, which incorporated multiple
uses into the purpose of a field station, and seemed limitless in scope.
Curriculum Changes
In the fall of 1970, a new
course was added to the Macalester curriculum: Environmental Science 15,
Interdisciplinary Course, which was also listed under Biology, Geology, and
Geography. The new Environmental Science program was coordinated by Mr.
Webers and Mr. Lanegran, and the course’s only prerequisite was one course in
the sciences. The class was described as “a multi-disciplined
introduction to the scientific aspects of the ‘physical’ environment. The
course will stress biological, geographical, and geological facets of the
environment with contributions from the disciplines of chemistry, physics and
economics.[151]”
Obviously, this was quite a bit to cram into a single class, but certainly a
good foundation from which to build an academic program.
Two years later, beginning
in the 1972-1973 academic year, students could earn a Major Concentration in
Environmental Studies. Macalester College was one of the first colleges
in the Midwest to offer such a program, so it was definitely a progressive and
constantly changing field at the time. In the 1972-73 Catalog, the
concentration is described as an
interdepartmental
major that focuses on man’s relationship to his environment…[it is] intended to
improve students’ understanding of mankind’s role in the physical and
biological world, and is established in the belief that there is a role in
society for persons broadly trained in matters pertaining to the environment.[152]
This revised program had a
stronger mission; however, instead of listing any classes it simply refers
interested students to one of three professors[153] for advising.
By the next year, the
Environmental Studies program was entirely the business of David Southwick, a Geology
professor who had previously been involved in the Environmental Studies
program, and who served as coordinator until 1978.[154] The program description covered more than a page in the
course catalog and set out a specific plan for completion of the major
concentration in this field, which consisted of fourteen courses from Astronomy
to Anthropology, plus a list of recommended courses and two of Environmental
Studies’ very own classes, an introduction and a senior seminar.[155]
In 1976, the introductory
course had disappeared and was replaced by a junior year internship
requirement. The required courses were better articulated, again, ranging
throughout all sorts of departments. It is apparent that Environmental
Studies was truly an interdisciplinary major. In 1978, Professor J.A.
Jones (former Director of Ordway) took over the Environmental Studies program
and it became a full-blown major, instead of being listed in the back of the
catalog with other interdisciplinary “programs.[156]”
As Macalester fell deeper
into the financial problems of the 1970’s, the crisis was reflected in the
course catalog of 1974-1975 in several ways. The Biology Department,
along with others, shrunk in number of faculty and classes offered. In
the directory of the administration, many positions were listed as “to be
designated,” instead of having a name, including the Director of Development,
the Associate Director of Admissions, and the Director of Financial Aid.[157]
Publicity in the 70’s
On 24 January 1972, an editorial
appeared in the Mac Weekly, authored by Christman, alerting students of
Ordway’s existence.[158] An
article about Ordway appeared in the Macalester College Bulletin in
March. This article invites alums to visit the area as well as disclosing
that Christman’s salary was being supported by a gift from Mr. and Mrs. Allan
Holbert (Mrs. Holbert, née Jill Irvine, is a niece of Katharine Ordway).
The Holberts made the gift “in recognition of the significant contribution to
solving environmental problems” that KONHSA was making and to “assure its
continued impact upon the field of ecology and conservation.[159]” It
is surprising that someone made a donation based on this premise, when the area
was still young and had never been touted with having an “impact” on
conservation.
In March 1971, someone,
again presumably Christman, gave a Seminar Presentation with slides in which he
described the mammal, invertebrate, and plant studies which were happening at
KONHSA. He suggested increased use by classes for specimen gathering, as
well as linking up with other nature centers,[160] another suggestion that appears to have been ignored.
A March 1972 article in the
Macalester College Bulletin definitely missed scooping the following story,
“Ordway Nature Study Open,” by several years.[161] A few articles appeared in the Macalester Today during
these years, including the obituary for the Box Elder tree.[162]
Another article, entitled “Nature Center Wet and Colorful” was written shortly
after the college founded its Environmental Studies Program, and touts some of
the new inclusions of non-Biology uses:
under the guidance of
David Lanegran…[Geography students can study] urban vegetation (plants brought
to the cities by settlers)…or to learn under the guidance of David Southwick
[Geology] how glacial deposits control the soil and development of vegetation
on this particular site.[163]
The article invites all
members of the Macalester community to visit Ordway via the “Blue Goose”
shuttle bus[164] that made
trips to Ordway twice a week.[165]
Research Initiatives at
Ordway During the 1970’s
Ordway has never been the
site of a great deal of research, despite the fact that it was originally
chosen to suit this purpose. In fact, there have been those who have said
that Ordway is not a particularly good place for research. Since it is a
“natural history study area,” as defined by Christman, [166] that implies that
research can be rather informal and performed at any scale. Because of
the relatively small size of the area and the communities within it (i.e.
large-scale prairie experiments are simply not possible[167]), research
has been somewhat limited to projects of a smaller scale. Others contend
that the research possibilities are limited only by one’s imagination.
The vast majority of the
research that remains from these years was performed by Christman himself, the
vocational ornithologist, as part of his long-term bird banding study. He
kept incredibly accurate records[168] and indeed had many return avian visitors, such as the chickadee
he befriended.[169] Jack
Shields, a Biology professor, produced several long and comprehensive reports
during July of 1972: research on the linear growth rate in woody plants and a
distribution report on the flora of KONHSA; he also compiled a master herbarium
for Ordway.[170]
Despite the majority of
anecdotal reports about Ordway, there were in fact a great many independent
research projects being carried out at Ordway during this time, including
projects by undergraduate and graduate students from other institutions.[171]
Christman’s quarterly reports were replete with updates about who was doing
what sort of research, but it is unclear if anyone was reading these reports to
get an idea of Ordway’s research potential. One student, named Paul, did
a January term project there that seems among the harder winter interim
projects to take on: he tried to dig a well. According to Christman, Paul
was quite a character himself. He often wore a muslin Slavic-style homemade
shirt and would sing old riverboat songs while he worked. Evidently, Paul dug
down about twelve or fourteen feet and hit moist ground, but never was quite
able to get a bucket of water out.[172]
Contrary to some current
assertions about Ordway, there was plenty of serious research, involving larger
universities and collaborations, going on during this period. For
example, a doctoral candidate at the University of Minnesota carried out an
invertebrate-trapping study there, a behavioral study funded by the NSF was
performed by a professor from St. Catherine’s and a Macalester student, and
another U of M graduate student was studying sow bugs at Ordway for years.[173]
Eddie Hill did compile a list of Ordway-based research papers that had been
filed in the Biology Department, which he sent to Thomas Savage.[174]
These projects include flora surveys, aquatic investigations in River Lake, and
research on the relationships between snowmobile use and small mammal
mortality.[175]
While Ordway was by no means teeming with researchers, there seemed to be
little question that it was an appropriate and accessible place for a variety
of projects.
Opportunities to Expand
KONHSA (or: How to Anger your Benefactors)
John Dozier wrote to
Katharine Ordway on 18 October 1972 to let her know that “we have acquired an
additional piece of land contiguous” to Ordway. This purchase consisted
of
…approximately
two acres of land[176] at the
front of the property, which expands the frontage on County Road #77 from a
single point on the road where the driveway comes into the area to 425.9
feet. This will allow us to have a more gracious and effective entryway
to the area.
He also mentions that
we
hope one of these days to be able to report to you the acquisition of an even
larger piece of land in this area. You will recall that part of our
problem here is that the landowner here is tied up in a complicated estate
settlement and it will be months, I am sure, before we can get final approval
for any purchase. We are, however, still optimistic and are working.[177]
Dozier’s take seems to be
opposed to Robinson and others who maintained that there was no land available
for purchase. A letter from President Robinson to Katharine Ordway on 16
November 1972 thanked her for her gift that helped to purchase “better frontage
area” at Ordway and said that the remainder of her gift was being retained
“awaiting opportunities to make additional purchases of land…but it appears
that it will be sometime [sic] before any of the neighbors will be willing to
relinquish additional acreage.[178]”
The same President James
Robinson who had announced the triumphant end to the Challenge Campaign was
suddenly faced with financial difficulties later in the 1970’s. DeWitt
Wallace withdrew his support, over thirty faculty were laid off—these were hard
times indeed for Macalester College.[179] However, there had been money given to Macalester and
specifically earmarked for increasing the acreage of Ordway. Throughout
the 1970’s, there were at least two opportunities to purchase a substantial
parcels of adjoining land which were conspicuously missed, leaving some
confused and others angry.
On 6 December 1972, per
instructions of Ray Carter, Ordway’s attorney, 125 shares of Katharine Ordway’s
3M stock had been sold, at a value of $82.75 per share: a total of $10,343.75,[180] the
proceeds of which were donated to Macalester. The next day, President
Robinson wrote to “Messrs.” DeWitt Wallace and A.L. Cole regarding Katharine
Ordway’s support of KONHSA. It seems that the previous December, Wallace,
Cole and Robinson had been to visit Katharine Ordway, which had earned
Macalester $25,000. He also notified them of the recent $10,000 gift
(evidently, he rounded down this time) and suggested that they “apprize her of
your appreciation of her gift on the basis of this ‘confidential’
communication.[181]”
A 17 December letter from
President Robinson to Ordway opens with the somewhat tactless paragraph: “In
each of the last two Decembers, you have made a generous gift to Macalester
College in [sic] behalf of the Ordway Natural History Study Area. It is
my hope that you might do so again this year.” After that, he goes on to
boast about the newly created Environmental Studies academic program and the
way Macalester has responded to the energy crisis, having “reduced electrical
and fuel consumption nearly 20% without interfering with instruction.” He
closes: “You will find few colleges as ecological and conservative minded as
this one. We would be grateful, therefore, for a 1973 gift of $25,000 to
assist us in our program to educate students in preservation and protection of
natural resources.[182],[183]”
Macalester shouldn’t have been surprised to receive a phone call from Katharine
Ordway in response to the letter from Robinson. During the call, she
“expressed the hope that the money might be used for additional acquisitions of
property, but in the event that none was available, stated that the money could
be used for such purposes as the President felt appropriate,[184]” and that
“she was particularly interested in acquiring prairie lands at the current
time.” Katharine mentioned that she appreciated the two reports which had
been sent to her (by Christman, undoubtedly) regarding work done at
KONHSA. She “expected to be able to make further contributions to the
Center next year, but that she was committed to prairie acquisitions this year.[185]”
A few years later, some
fiery correspondence was exchanged between our Miss Ordway and Thomas
Savage. First, on 17 June 1974, Savage wrote that his mother had
bequeathed $10,000 to Mac upon her death in 1968 because her father was a
“trustee in the era of Dr. Wallace.” He says that Macalester had agreed
to match funds with Savage in order to enlarge KONHSA. Since that promise
had been made, Macalester had missed opportunities to purchase parcels near the
Ordway land, including 100 acres to the north, which were later saddled with an
airstrip and a small factory (where they manufacture pontoon boats[186]).
“There is apparently a complete lack of interest on the part of the college
administration in adding to the natural history area,” Savage proclaimed; using
words like “deplorable” elsewhere in the letter, he also implied that Christman
himself was not happy with how KONHSA was being managed. Savage also
suggested that he and Ordway meet with “key members of the Macalester faculty
and administration.[187]”
Katharine Ordway wrote him back in a week, agreeing that it was “deplorable,”
and reiterating that she had given $10,241 on 6 December 1972 and another
$5,000 on 5 April 1974, but had never been told what these sums had been used
for. She told Savage that she had written to President Robinson to
express her concern, but that she was leaving the country until mid-July and
would be unable to come to St. Paul anytime in the near future.[188]
On 18 Nov 76, Eddie Hill sent a
memo to Alexander (Sandy) Hill, VP of Development, notifying him of the sale of
the 122-acre Leitch estate, which bordered the south side of the Ordway
property. He even attached a sheet with several different options for
purchasing parts or all of the land.[189] Sandy Hill replied eleven days
later with the disheartening news that our
relations with Katherine Ordway (the most likely donor for additional
purchases) have not been that good, because of information she has received
about under use [sic] of the area by Macalester. What we really need from
Miss Ordway is an endowment so that we could properly use the area; i.e., money
to provide transportation, etc.[190]
Looking back on those days,
perhaps buying land was a bit much to expect from a College in financial
duress; it seems that at one time Macalester was under pressure to sell
Ordway. According to Eddie Hill, “there was never really a lot of heavy
pressure to get that land [the Leitch estate], to expand the area, as far as I
was ever able to tell. There was some pressure to sell it…to a developer,
but that never came about either.[191]” According to Alexander Hill, the Leitch estate was passed
up for financial reasons rather than due to a bad relationship with Katharine
Ordway; in fact, during the 1970’s, many of the large family contributors
withdrew support from Macalester pending its survival as an institution.[192]
Still, we must believe that Katharine Ordway was rather unhappy about the
dismissive attitude with which Macalester treated her.[193] One
only has to compare the air photos included in Figures 3-5 to see that both the
parcels to the north and south of Ordway have since been quite developed.
Richard Christman commented
on Macalester’s thinly veiled exploitative attitude towards donors during the
1970’s and recalled several anecdotes. He remembered Thomas Savage
visiting Ordway with a representative of the Macalester administration.
After a short walk, they were sitting inside and Christman listened to the
Macalester representative hinting that Ordway could use more donations.
As we know, Mr. Savage was not terribly happy with the way his previous
donations had or had not been used, and according to Christman he replied, “All
I hear is ‘we need more money, we need more money.’ I still want to find
out what happened to the other money!”
In another instance, Mrs.
John Ordway was visiting, and after a brief trot outside (she was getting older
and couldn’t walk much) Christman, Ordway and other Macalester administrative
folks reconvened inside. Christman remembers Mrs. Ordway taking out a
cigarette and lighting up, and “the other people were aghast. I said ‘I’d
like a smoke Ms. Ordway!’” Christman always did seem to enjoy taking the
mischievous route. A final recollection seems particularly
devious—Christman recalled members of the faculty and administration rolling
out a genealogical chart of the Ordway family which encompassed about four
generations. He said that while it wasn’t blatantly stated, the intent
was rather clear: oh, this girl is about two now, but when she’s in her
twenties maybe we can get some money from her.[194] Unfortunately, while part of this attitude was probably a
symptom of the desperate financial situation, it can’t have done anything good
in the way of donor relations.
Did Katharine Ordway Ever
See Her Namesake?
Already in 1967, in the initial
series of thank-you letters, President Rice had expressed an interest in
hosting Katharine Ordway at the area to show her around the field station as
well as the main campus. Professor Jones, in a letter to Katharine Ordway
on 18 February 1970, mentioned that she ought to come visit that summer.
A letter from President Robinson to Katharine Ordway mentioned that Mrs. John
Ordway, Sr. had recently visited Ordway and was given a tour; “She seemed to
enjoy herself immensely, and undoubtedly has seen you in the meantime,[195]” hinting
that perhaps Katharine herself ought to visit. Katharine Ordway also
expressed interest in visiting, in a 4 March 1974 letter: “I hope to be in
Minneapolis in the early spring and will surely go out to the Ordway Preserve.
I have enjoyed so much the letters that Dr. Christian [sic] has sent out to
those interested.” A handwritten note on the margin brackets this
paragraph and says “does not occur;” which presumably refers to Katharine
Ordway’s proposed visit.[196]
Further correspondence was
exchanged between Christman and Macalester later in the month regarding the
possibility of Katharine Ordway dropping by in “early spring,” which Christman
says is …indefinite—and
who could predict it in Minnesota? –but perhaps that lady is inclined to
translate seasons into terms of those existing in her current habitat, viz.
Connecticut.[197] I’m
just suggesting that some comment of this would be worth while now rather than
risk her visiting here when things are too inclement to make a reasonable visit
out of it.[198]
Evidently this was promising,
however, and to the end of receiving Katharine Ordway at the area named after
her, there were preparations made such as fixing the lab floors, tidying up,
and putting in trail marker posts.[199] There seems to be a good deal
of anticipation over her visit, but did she ever make it?
Alexander Hill was not aware of
Katharine herself ever visiting the area, but he did take Pondie Nicholson (the
niece of Katharine Ordway and mother of Ford Nicholson, a current Macalester
Trustee) and some others out for a picnic lunch on the property, which they
apparently enjoyed very much.[200] Eddie Hill, on the other hand,
remembered that Katharine Ordway’s daughter[201] visited as well as possibly
Katharine herself. Both Hills were present at that lunch with the Ordway
affiliates, whoever they were, and Eddie was very frank that the purpose of
this idyllic cold lunch was fundraising to help out Ordway.[202] Mark Davis remembered that
Pondie had come in the very early 1980’s but also thought that Pondie was Katharine’s
daughter. Regarding the mystery of whether Ordway came or not, he said:
“I guess I’d be kind of surprised if she’d never gone out there, having given
lots of money to starting preservation in the Midwest.[203]”
Richard Christman finally gave
the conclusive answer: “Miss Ordway visited one time.” He estimates the
date of her visit was about 1978. In his 2nd quarter report from 1972, he
insinuated that “our friend, Miss Ordway” had visited near the end of June of
that year. Whenever it was, Christman was out of town during her visit so
he never actually met her. “I just know she was a fine woman,” he said.[204]
Utilization of Ordway Under
Christman
Christman had developed a
trail system with a guide to describe the different habitats on the property,
which made the area more accessible and increased the educational value of the
land. In the 1970’s, Ordway was used a great deal, and by a great variety
of visitors. Christman kept very careful logs of the number and type of
visitor that Ordway had during these years, which allows us to make quite
accurate conclusions.[205] The use of the area fluctuated seasonally (Figure 6), with
annual peaks consistently occurring in the 2nd quarter as reported
by Christman, or April to June. As can be seen in Figure 7, the total
annual number of visitors peaked during 1971 and 1973, with 2333 and 2468
visitors, respectively, and slowly tapered off towards the end of Christman’s
tenure. This was due largely to a downward trend in the number of
elementary students that visited, as can be seen in the chart of Elementary
student use as well as that correlating Elementary school use with the drop in
total numbers (Figures 8 & 9, respectively). This, in turn, can be
blamed on cutbacks experienced by many schools during that period.[206]
Christman said that as schools were less able to finance large field trips and
buses, some of the smaller classes would arrive in mother-driven caravans, a
testament to the outside perception of Ordway’s value as an educational resource.
The use of KONHSA by
Macalester students fluctuated slightly throughout the 1970’s (Figure 10), but
compared to the fluctuations in the total number of visitors, we see that the
use by Macalester remained relatively constant (Figure 11). Use by other
colleges was also quite high in the 1970’s, as we see in Figure 12.
Compared to Macalester student use, that of other colleges was generally less,
but slightly more stable (Figure 13), and when compared to the total numbers,
the use by other colleges appears almost constant (Figure 14). Most
of these trips that were non-Macalester students (i.e. the majority of the
visitors) were largely due to the initiative of Christman, without direct
support from the College or formal incorporation into the curricula or values
of Macalester.
It is evident that Christman
enjoyed the opportunity to teach children about the natural world. Often,
after a group of kids would visit, they would send thank-you letters to
Christman, and as he beamed, he told me about one that read, “I didn’t know a
blue jay was so pretty.” He also postulated about the influence which his
instruction had had on the youngsters, saying that he would be very interested
to find some of those children now, grown up and probably with children of
their own, to see if their visits to Ordway had made an impact on their life—or
whether they allow their children to “sit and play on the internet all day.[207]”
Thanks to Christman’s interest and rapport with children, during the 1970’s
Ordway enjoyed some of the highest and, probably, most influential use of its
life.
However, it seems that the
Biology Department may have overlooked this large proportion of the area’s use
(again, perhaps the problem was that no one was reading Christman’s reports).
The main function of Ordway during this time, according to Eddie Hill, was
education—not only for Macalester students, but for Inver Hills CC, Hamline,
and St. Thomas (free of charge to other schools, of course).[208]
Macalester did not seem concerned with the Elementary students and Scout and
community groups which had once used the area quite a bit, even though this
would have been an appropriate endeavor for Macalester to support given its
commitment to serving the wider community.
In April 1976, Christman
held a joint meeting with representatives from other colleges (Inver Hills
Community College, Augsburg College, St. Thomas University, College of St.
Catherine, and Hamline University) in an attempt to increase intercollegiate
use of Ordway. According to Christman, this meeting may have sparked some
interest from the Inver Hills Community College: “Thus it does begin to look as
if we are having increased and better use of our facilities by the other
college groups.[209]” In
October of that year, there was a meeting at Ordway, about Ordway, which all
the ACTC (Associated Colleges of the Twin Cities) schools plus the Inver Hills
Community College were invited to.[210] Interestingly enough, 1976 was the last year of relatively
high usage by other colleges (Figure 12).
Non-academic groups also
used Ordway occasionally, although these events were usually based on a premise
of entertaining donors and “friends” of the college. In the fall of 1971, a
letter went out to Macalester’s “Dear Friends” from Margaret Day of
Development. It opened, “How About an Afternoon in the Country?” and
invited the recipients of the letter to a “family get-together” on a Sunday in
October. It is unclear, but this was very likely a fundraising attempt,
considering it was from the Development Office. The letter paints a
rather pastoral picture of the event: “Just pack your picnic basket, don your
hiking shoes and outing clothes, gather up the children, climb into the family
car,” the letter advises.[211] Even though Ordway was an ideal place for such events, we
must emphasize that the vast majority of the use during the Christman era was
educational, and a great deal of that was for pre-secondary students.
Continuing Management Issues
Eddie Hill served as the
Director of Ordway in the late 1970’s, after Gerald Dahling left that
position. According to Eddie Hill himself, however, there was no one
person in the Biology Department who was responsible for the operations of
Ordway, and he emphasized the large role of the “Caretaker” as, essentially,
the real “Director” of Ordway.[212] This left Christman with the vast majority of the work, and
the heavy reliance by Macalester on one off-campus staff person helped to
dissolve links between the College and “the Area.” This was evidently not
a problem the Biology Department was eager to address on its own, but as
relations with Katharine Ordway and other donors deteriorated, directives came
from the top down to form some sort of management body on campus.
On 7 September 1976 a memo
was sent to President John B. Davis from Claude A. Welch (Biology Department
Chair) and copies were received by Eddie Hill, Gerald Dahling, J. Jones (all of
Biology), and J. Linnell, with the subject of “The Ordway Committee,” which is
the last diplomatic phrase in the memo. (It is also useful to note the
exclusion of Christman from the memo; one would think that the
Caretaker/Director ought to be informed about such a restructuring.)
Welch calls the formation of this committee “one more frontal assault on the
‘Ordway affair’” and says he has let those members know that this should be
their “major departmental commitment outside of their teaching
assignments.” He sounds bitter about the so-called “Ordway affair,”
evidently sparked by the correspondence between Katharine Ordway and Savage,
and likely by further politics within the Biology Department which simply can’t
be preserved in archives, saying that
I am
not convinced that the area is underused during the school year. There is
no base line [sic] for this type of area and overuse of a Natural History Study
Area is much, much worse than any alleged underuse. The alleged underuse
which we have discussed in our previous meetings, has, in my opinion, political
rather than education and scientific sources.[213]
The first minutes of the
Ordway Committee are dated the next day, Wednesday, 8 September 1976.
They discussed utilization of the area, but seemed to make no attempt to
increase usage apart from writing letters to ACTC schools to encourage them to
use Ordway. The last item appears to say “See PJ Aslanian about Ordway
funding:” which is followed by several points which make it sound like no one
really knew anything about Ordway’s budget.[214]
The budget itself has an
interesting history of overutilization, as it were. Somehow, the
budget slowly disappeared throughout the 1970’s (see Figure 15 and compare with
Figure 16 to see how Ordway’s budget decreased with Macalester’s dwindling
endowment in the 1970’s): this is mysterious, since there appear to have been
very few investments in Ordway during these years. According to
Eddie Hill, who served as director in the late 1970’s, “When the area was
originally set up…there was some money set aside as an endowment for operating
costs. And that sort of disappeared during the 70’s, where it just sort
of got cut, drawn into the college operating budget.[215]”
The Ordway Committee seems
to have been short-lived and probably was not very successful, according to the
budget and visitor graphs that continue to decline through the 1970’s.
This is just one more example of the problems that always have, and continue
to, plague Ordway’s effective management.
The Question of
Underutilization
The word “underutilization”
has come up quite frequently in the history of Ordway. It appears too
frequently to be a typographical error. There were those, such as Welch,
who believed that even if it was underutilized, that was okay.
There were others, such as the donors who had a put a great amount of money
into KONHSA, who were not as comfortable with the idea of underutilization, and
justifiably so. This debate is currently over thirty years old, and there
has been little consensus and littler action taken to remediate the Ordway use
question.
Before we can determine if
Ordway is underutilized, we must determine what it ought to be utilized
for. As the Director of Ordway during much of this period, and a witness
to the entire decade at Macalester, Eddie Hill was among those who believe
Ordway’s function is rather narrow due to its size and infrastructure:
The
problem with utilization of the area is that it’s not that big. …When
people go out there and look at it [Ordway], you know, there’s not a lake there
that you can put in a canoe and paddle around and fish. There’s not a
golf course next to it…there’s not cabins there that people could stay in…it’s
really only an area where you would go and spend 2, 3, 4 hours, and then
leave. You could lay out study plots…you could forage for mushrooms in
the summertime…there were some ecological principles that you could demonstrate
out there. But it was never an area that you could do much more with than
that unless you wanted to turn it into a public park and put shelters up.[216]
Apparently, the idea of
turning Ordway into some sort of public facility was presented as a solution to
the problem of underutilization:
There
was always kind of the discussion about whether you keep it a study
area—however you define study area—or do you make it a public park: people
could have Sunday afternoon picnics, and so on. If we went the latter
route, then the College would probably have to get out of real estate down
there—so that never came about. So we said, we’ll leave it as a natural
area. Whatever’s going to happen, we’ll let it happen naturally.[217]
Since the 1970’s, though,
the land has been greatly impacted by human “interference:” the fires were
either controlled by ecologists or started by the railroad, the sumacs were cut
by students; in fact, using Ordway as a laboratory for such conservation
techniques has recently become one of its best uses.
As mentioned before, there
was quite a bit of research going on at Ordway, mostly in small-scale,
short-term projects, and many from students of other colleges and universities
(although it seems the Biology Department failed to recognize some of these
uses as well). Eddie Hill feels that Ordway “…doesn’t lend itself to much
research. There’s not big enough areas. It’s just a place to see a
variety of different phenomena that, historically, had been associated with
ecology. It really wasn’t good for much of anything else, the way the
land was.[218]”
Regarding the land, Eddie Hill mentioned the prairie:
The
prairie itself is not that large… For some reason, people want to see
prairie areas preserved. It’s hard to preserve a prairie area sitting in
that area, surrounded by everything that a prairie is not surrounded by…I don’t
know how long that prairie will stay a prairie, or if it still is.[219]
This can be seen as a detriment
to Ordway. However, it can also be perceived as a benefit: since the
prairie is small and surrounded by non-prairie, it could be an ideal place to
do research and perhaps make a very useful laboratory for development of
techniques to preserve small bits of Minnesotan prairie, since small bits are
all we still have, particularly in the Twin Cities Metro Area.
During the 1970’s, the main
use of Ordway by Macalester College was by Biology students and classes,
although an occasional Geology or Geography class would use the area, and
sometimes alumni groups. According to Eddie Hill,
By
and large, the people that used it were the Biology Department…and there was
always the argument of underutilization—you know, ‘what do we use Ordway for,’
and I would tell them, and they would say ‘nobody goes out there; it’s
underutilized.’ And I would always come back with ‘well, what would you
do?…How should it be utilized?’ And that ended the conversation.[220]
Thomas Savage was in the
other camp; he was quite vocal and irritated with what he perceived as Ordway’s
underutilization:
…his
family had given money to the College…most people who have given money to the
college seem to think they’d like, you know, this is how I want this money
spent. And it gets kind of hard as an administrator, the President of the
College, to accept all these gifts and then say ‘well, we can’t quite use it
the way you had originally envisioned it.’[221]
Eddie Hill certainly
recognized that the issue was rather complicated:
That’s
an interesting phenomenon: well, it’s underutilized, but what should we do to
utilize it more? And no one really knew what to do to get more
utilization. And then you say, ‘well, what is more utilization? You
want more people out there? And once they get there, what are they going
to do?’[222]
Underutilization is only a
symptom of a more pervasive disease plaguing Ordway. As the numbers show,
KONHSA was utilized by thousands in the early 1970’s, a fact everyone seems to
have forgotten about by the end of that decade. Indeed, many facets of
Ordway were forgotten about as Macalester College fell victim to the
path-of-least-resistance attitude: out of sight, out of mind.
Christman’s 3rd Quarter 1982
report ends: “My God! Does anyone ever read these reports???[223]”
According to Eddie Hill, the reports were intended for the ears of the Biology
Department at large, and no specific individual or committee within the
department; “we never really had a committee. …Well, at the onset there
might have been a committee,” but it sounds like everything during these years
was the jurisdiction of Christman: “at that time, he was really the director of
the area. Everything went through him.[224]” Christman clearly took his job seriously and was
dedicated to his work at Ordway. However, he was taken for granted by
Macalester during his tenure, despite the fact that he was probably the only
reason Ordway was as effective as it was in its first years.
S.O.S. for Ordway
(1983-1997)
With Christman went some of
the enthusiasm for Ordway’s well being. He was not treated or paid particularly
well by Macalester, and as he had become closer to Ordway[225] and showed
his great competence for running the area almost single-handedly, Macalester
was able to gradually forget about Ordway’s management by the early
1980’s.
Therefore, it must have come
as something of a shock when Christman left in 1985, and the college realized
that Ordway was without a caretaker, without a budget, and without a managing
body. The driveway to Ordway was barely passable, the prairie was being
infested by sumac, and the building itself was suffering from general
disrepair.[226] The
Biology Department was meanwhile busy restructuring some of its introductory
courses to include a heavier ecological component, and the position of Ordway
naturalist/caretaker was likewise redefined to create a position of a staff
person who would also teach on campus. This was hoped, apparently, to
foster a greater connection between Macalester and its field station.
Ecologists on Board
Mark Davis arrived on the
Biology faculty in 1981. Daniel Hornbach came in the fall of 1984.
Both of them were hired as faculty who had experience in ecological
principles. Davis was responsible for taking over the Environmental Studies
Program, and immediately he began taking his Ecology, Field Botany, and Animal
Ecology classes to Ordway. He became the Director of Ordway within a few
years of his arrival, from about 1982-87.[227] Hornbach taught Aquatic Ecology classes at River Lake,
mostly bottom sampling of the silty backwaters, and he served as Ordway’s
Director after Davis.[228]
The Environmental Studies
major at Macalester did not change fundamentally in the 1980’s, although it did
evolve from one course catalog to the next; adding a course here, dropping a
requirement there. If anything, it appears that Environmental Studies was
trying to incorporate faculty from more departments, as it began to list a
faculty member from Biology, Economics, Chemistry, Geology, and Geography.[229]
Ignorance was Bliss
The paper trail of Ordway’s
history is patchy at best. However, it is sometimes the complete voids
that are most telling. A complete lack of correspondence during a period
really says something about the importance (or lack thereof) of Ordway in that
period.[230]
A fine illustration of this is the early 1980’s, when Macalester had been
lulled into a false complacency and Christman had given up on his quarterly
reports out of frustration.
After several years without
any records whatsoever in the archives, the first one of 1986 is a November
memo to Peter Conn from James Smail, acting Chair of the Biology Department at
the time.[231] He
begins: “As I’m sure you know, starting in the early summer of 1986, it became
clear that something had to be done about the Area.[232]” From here, the tone of the letter becomes even less
hopeful: the Ordway operating budget was suddenly zero as of 1985-86 (see
Figures 15 & 17). The $100,000-plus originally donated by Ordway had
all been spent: “apparently the gifts were not seen as endowment; the principal
was simply spent,” was Smail’s bewildered explanation. He proposed a
modest[233] budget for
the upcoming year, mentioned that Hornbach is applying for an NSF grant[234] and he
also expresses some discomfort with the Ordway budget being the Biology
Department’s[235] problem,
since it had been so poorly managed in the past.[236] Even
though this memo was full of bad news, we mustn’t attack the messenger: on the
contrary, it seems that Smail was the first person in years to waste paper on
the subject of the forgotten field station.
Attempts to Rejuvenate
Ordway
In the late 1980’s, probably
as a result of the aforementioned memo, Macalester finally put some investment
back into Ordway. After surviving the crisis of the 1970’s, donors’ faith
in Macalester was renewed, and a great influx of cash during the 1980’s came
from DeWitt Wallace and the Reader’s Digest stocks the college owned.[237] So
perhaps it is not surprising that Macalester was able to splurge a bit on
sprucing up their nearly forgotten appendage. The operating budget of
Ordway increased while Shelley Shreffler was the Resident Naturalist; she
estimates that it went from about $3,000 to $11-14,000 in the years between
1988-1995. The buildings and facilities were improved, the Resident
Naturalist’s apartment was enlarged, and two student worker positions were
funded to work all summer getting rid of the infestation of sumac.[238]
Hornbach applied for and was granted a NSF grant which furnished Ordway’s
laboratory with microscopes and other lab goodies and necessities. A
canoe, a small boat, and a boardwalk were installed on River Lake, though the
boardwalk was stolen rising river levels shortly after its installation.[239]
It was clear to everyone
that something needed to be done about Ordway, but how to make it closer to
Macalester when it had already been allowed to drift so far away? The
decision was made to use the Resident Naturalist as a vehicle for fostering this
relationship.
When Christman was the
Resident Naturalist of Ordway, he would assist with courses at Ordway,
but he had very little presence on campus, and no formal responsibilities on
campus. So the position was intentionally changed by Biology faculty, including
Hornbach and Davis, to a position that required splitting time between Ordway
and teaching of on-campus labs. However, in hindsight this change also
made the position …much
more schizophrenic then, with the person having some duties out there and some
duties on campus, and that’s always been a difficult part of that
position. …It’s been beneficial for the students. I think it’s
created tensions and difficulties for the person hired to do that.[240]
Another reason that the new
Resident Naturalists may have felt some tension is that until the mid-1980’s,
all labs were taught by faculty and there were no “staff” in the science
departments.[241] It
is possible that the new staff members were made to feel socially and
professionally below some of the faculty who weren’t used to the new
system. However, it does seem that the restructuring of this position was
useful in making the Resident Naturalist a more influential force on campus as
well as at Ordway.
In the Wake of Christman
(Clugston and Shreffler)
In the aforementioned memo from
Smail, some of the only good news was that a new Resident Naturalist had been
found to fill the large shoes left by Christman. He describes the new
hire, David Clugston, as “a very able young man, full of ideas, knowledge,
skill and enthusiasm.[242]”
Clugston followed directly in the wake of Christman, in 1986, as the first
person hired under the revised position description.[243] He began with very little to
work with, considering the 1985 budget for KONHSA had a bottom line of zero
dollars and zero cents.[244]
However, Clugston was
apparently up for the challenge, and wrote a memo, optimistically entitled
“Future Plans for Ordway.” He says that Ordway is at “a critical point in
its history,” and sets out many good suggestions, such as a series of “Ordway
Overnites” and an internship position.[245] Unfortunately for Macalester,
Clugston’s tenure at Ordway was not very long; and was certainly not long
enough for him to implement these ideas. Shelley Shreffler (Clugston’s
eventual successor) felt that Dan Hornbach, in hiring Clugston, was very
interested in the rejuvenation of Ordway, and that Clugston had really started
the process.[246]
Clugston wrote a new trail map and guide for the area. His other legacy is
a list of 1987-88 Physical Plant project requests, which include fill and
gutters to prevent basement flooding, patching and painting of walls,[247] and other
things that could have easily been taken care of years before in a scenario
where the communication was open and there was less resentment. This is
also exemplary of the neglect suffered by Ordway in the early 1980’s.
Shelley Shreffler, a plant
ecologist by training, became the Assistant Director at Ordway in 1988 and
stayed until 1995. She was, unlike Clugston, hired on a year-round basis,
and she split her time between teaching Macalester Introductory Biology labs
and working at Ordway. Evidently Physical Plant paid some heed to
Clugston’s memo, as the Assistant Director’s dwelling space was renovated in
the time between Clugston and Shreffler. The accommodations were,
however, by no means luxurious: according to Shreffler, it “turned what was a
very unpleasant one-bedroom apartment into a more pleasant two-bedroom
apartment.[248]”
Shreffler wrote a
semi-annual report for the last half of 1988. It appears she was quite
busy already in her first year at Ordway, with projects such as woody species
control (mostly sumac), prairie restoration, and designing teachers’ workshops.[249] She
had many goals of increasing the use and accessibility of Ordway as well, and
she credited Hornbach with being very supportive of her and the aforementioned
goals. Hornbach was the Director of Ordway for much of the time that
Shreffler was the Assistant Director. Shreffler described Hornbach as
having a very “hands-off approach” in directing Ordway, but is quick to add
that he was “very supportive” of Shreffler’s work. Hornbach didn’t have a
lot to do with the “day-to-day operation” of Ordway, and Shreffler guessed that
she was “Assistant Director[250]” and he was Director because it seemed to be a tacit policy
that the Director ought to have a Ph.D. She also felt that Hornbach
showed more interest in the area during the short period while he was doing his
research on River Lake; after moving his research to the St. Croix River, he
had “not a decreased level of support, but a decreased level of
interest.” Shreffler certainly enjoyed a somewhat higher degree of
support from Macalester than Ordway had gotten in the past: “I never, ever felt
like I had to prove legitimacy. I knew that I had to raise people’s
awareness, but I never felt that I had to prove that we should be around, or
that it [KONHSA] was a valuable asset to the college.[251]”
Use (and Underuse) of KONHSA
in the Late 1980’s
Shreffler also wanted to
increase the number of students and use and accessibility of Ordway as an
educational facility as well as, secondarily, a research facility; but
“definitely” the primary use was for education. Shreffler is proud of her
role in increasing Ordway’s visibility and use:
I
would say that during my tenure that the relationship with the main part of the
campus increased…When I first started, people hadn’t even heard of the
place. When I left, people knew about the place; they hadn’t necessarily
been out there themselves, but they at least knew it existed.[252]
Shreffler remembers KONHSA
being used by Macalester’s Introductory Biology and Ecology classes as well as
enjoying regular use by David Lanegran’s Geography classes, and feels that she
helped establish many of the relationships with the other ACTC schools, such as
Hamline and St. Catherine’s, which used Ordway for field trips. Inver
Hills Community College also used Ordway regularly.[253]
Shreffler was also
interested in making Ordway useful “beyond Macalester’s borders…making it a
resource for the community rather than just for Macalester.” The amount
of students using the area did increase during her appointment[254] and she
remembers that non-class use also increased; for example, alumni barbecues and
community birdwatching trips.[255]
Although Shreffler had made
great strides in re-forging some of the links between Ordway and many campuses
that had been broken in the early 1980’s, she did not feel that it achieved its
“optimal use amount” while she was there. Shreffler quipped that she was
“not sure what the carrying capacity would be for Ordway,” yet she did “not
feel it was reached while I was there.[256]”
Again, the perceived mission
of Ordway is relevant to the perceived level of use or underuse. The
1980’s brought a slightly different idea of how Ordway was best used.
According to Davis, Ordway was a great teaching laboratory, especially
for teaching restoration for its own sake as well as the practice and
philosophies of restoration.[257] This is a new twist on Ordway’s potential that was not
explored a great deal in the 1970’s, and which survives until today in both
educational and volunteer uses of Ordway.
Shreffler feels Ordway is also
a useful place to learn techniques, especially those pertaining to ecological
and plant sampling. It is also important simply to preserve that kind of
open space within an urban area, and to make it available “as a resource for
the larger community.” Shreffler pointed out that Ordway serves as
critical habitat for animals and migrating birds; “280 acres is a huge amount”
from the perspective of fauna whose habitat is being encroached upon by the
sprawling Twin Cities;[258] as Davis quipped, the habitat quality is “as good as you can get
in the city![259]”
Shreffler points out that
“…it’s not a pristine area. So all the issues about trying to localize
impact…well, it can take a lot of impact…there’s been grazing, there’s been
haying, holding pens for steer…” Also, even though the area is small on
the scale of some gigantic nature preserves, Shreffler reminds us that one of
Ordway’s benefits is its variety:
…you’ve
got tallgrass prairie, you’ve got a couple different kinds of oak woodlands,
you’ve got several ponds, you’ve got permanent wetlands, you’ve got springs,
you’ve got a backwater lake, you’ve got a bottomland forest—there’s a lot of
stuff packed into a pretty small area.[260]
These two unique aspects of
Ordway have resurfaced throughout the years, and make the potential of the area
even greater for a variety of uses, including research.
Research at KONHSA During
the 1980’s
As during the 1970’s, there
was quite a bit of research going on at Ordway in the 1980’s, although there
are no such detailed records from the 1980’s. Shreffler herself did a few
research projects, including investigating sumac control methods[261] and
working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on surveying
wetlands. Shreffler also studied the soil ecosystem and underground food
webs, with the intent of comparing Midwestern and Pacific northwestern
grassland soil communities.[262] She felt that research at Ordway was somewhat confined to
the extent that “there were a limited number…of meaningful questions that you
could ask.” In terms of the Assistant Director doing much research,
however, that position entailed so many responsibilities that “research was
like ‘oh, yeah, by the way, if you have time, that’d be really cool.’”
For outside researchers, Shreffler felt that the research question is best
limited to a small scale, such as her soil ecology study.[263]
Mark Davis had a slightly
grimmer take on research at Ordway.
Both
Hornbach and I actually tried, and did do, some research out there…we both
ultimately decided that it was not a good place for us, mainly because it
isolated us. Science is generally not conducted in isolation, it’s
conducted as part of larger groups and enterprises. Particularly at a
small college, where you’re basically isolated anyway, and they only hire one
of each of you, it was really not a good professional situation. So we
both moved our research to settings where there’s more collaborative research
going on. That’s been better for us, and it’s definitely been better for
students as well.[264]
Hornbach now conducts most
of his mussel research on the St. Croix River[265] and Davis has moved to the University of Minnesota’s Cedar Creek
Natural History Area. Davis does echo the sentiments of Shreffler,
though, admitting that the utility of KONHSA for research really depends on the
scale of the project.[266]
Hunting and Burning in the
1980’s
Ordway has never had fences
around much of the property. Because of its proximity to a large
population center and due to its history of being used by locals before it was
owned by Macalester, it is very difficult and maybe impossible for one person
to control the access of others onto the 280-acre property. Shreffler
took on the gigantic project of posting “No Trespassing” signs around the
property that explain that it is a “scientific and natural area” owned by
Macalester College.[267]
However, signs are only as effective as their enforcement, and it was
impossible for Shelley to be expected to patrol the entire property; in
addition, if a hunter is already breaking the law by poaching in city limits,[268] it is a
relatively small offense to be trespassing at the time. Security problems
were existent during Christman’s time at Ordway, and they show up in the
quarterly reports,[269] especially
in the winter when hunting and snowmobiling increased, and tracks were easier
to see. However, Shreffler took the security concerns more seriously.
On 19 Dec 1988, as winter
trespassers became more annoying and evident, Shreffler wrote to Smail politely
requesting a weekend and holiday security guard at Ordway, mostly to deal with
the problem of illegal hunting on the property. According to Shreffler,
this was never really dealt with by Macalester and her request was never
granted. “In some ways,” she said, “I think that Physical Plant wished
that Ordway would go away. I never got that sense from any of the
academic departments.[270]” This is a sentiment that is still echoed today.
Shreffler described the
security issues as “a huge annoyance,” and gave several examples of instances
where she had attempted to seek recourse outside of Macalester for the
problem.
There
was a lot of poaching, a lot of trespassing, and very little we could do about
it. I actually caught a guy, trespassing: he was in a tree, clearly on
the property, he had a bow and arrows and his various paraphernalia—I learned
more about deer hunting while I was there—and I filed a complaint with the
conservation officer…and he filed the charges…it’s a gross misdemeanor and it got
plead down to a misdemeanor. And I was really pissed—finally I catch
somebody…and you know, the legal system, his mom works in a law office or
something.[271]
In another instance when
Shreffler encountered a poacher, she called the police department, and knew
exactly where the hunter was, but when the officer showed up he was wearing his
“polished leather shoes, there’s a couple feet of snow on the ground, and I was
like ‘he’s not going very far.’” “So not much was done” in the way of
trespassing or poaching at Ordway, according to Shreffler[272].
At the time, Shreffler said,
she felt that all hunting should be completely banned on the Ordway
property. However, one year the Minnesota DNR (Department of Natural
Resources) conducted a winter deer survey and found that the property contained
about four times as many deer as could reasonably be supported, which was
reflected in browse damage (nibbled-off twigs and buds). In retrospect,
she thinks it may have been a good idea to work with the bowhunters to create a
culling plan for the property. Amy Johnson wrote a paper regarding deer
control at Ordway and explored options for reducing the population, and
Shreffler was nearly ready to make recommendations to the college for deer
control about the time that she left.[273]
Snowmobilers weren’t so much
a problem until the last year or two Shreffler lived at Ordway, which she
attributes to the sprawl and the “increasing pressure on any open space…even if
they do put fences up around the whole thing, there’s going to be
problems.” In those two years, however, the use wasn’t that great so as
to be a concern regarding snow compaction or a negative impact on the land
itself. Shreffler emphasized the influence of urban sprawl on Ordway[274] and
admitted that fences or guards or police probably won’t stop security
problems.
That’s
why I’d handle things differently this time. I had such righteous
indignation at that point. And now it’s like, well, the reality is,
there’s increasing pressure on that land. So how do you constructively
channel it—because you’re not going to get rid of it.[275]
Shelley Shreffler was very
dedicated to the management of the land at Ordway. “I’m a pyromaniac at
heart,” Shreffler told me. All of the Ordway property was burned at least
once during Shreffler’s tenure, and some parts twice. “And then there
were the random wildfires, which I always liked seeing…the Fire
Marshall…eventually figured out that it was not going to be me who called in a
wildfire.” Shreffler wanted to burn out the woodland, but knew that the
Fire Marshall would not give her a burning permit to do so. Then she got
her wish:
…one
fire that got started…on the lower tracks burned into the woods. I was so
thrilled. The year after that, the most incredible population of
orchids…emerged, and only where it was burned. You could see where the
fire had been, because that’s where the orchids showed up.[276]
Records of exactly when and
where burnings were performed have disappeared, perhaps consumed by the flames
somewhere along the way.
Changes in the Resident
Naturalist Position
The Biology Department again
underwent a few changes, and the position of Resident Naturalist/Assistant
Director evolved as well. The position was changed to require someone who
could take care of Ordway as well as teaching Physiology labs. As a plant
ecologist, Shreffler says she “could kind of fake her way through
physiology…basically they cut my position and created a new position that was
similar but had an emphasis on physiology.[277]” Obviously, this new position description was more
difficult to fill, since biologists are generally concentrated in either field
or laboratory sciences. Therefore, in the interim before the right
candidate was found, a couple named Patrick and Shirley Baker[278] took over
Ordway for one or two years in the interim after Shreffler left.
Elizabeth Svenson was
completing her graduate degree at the University of Minnesota when her adviser
notified her of an opening as Resident Naturalist at Ordway. Beth seemed
perfect for the job, given its recent retooling and given her interests in
conservation and physiology. Svenson was hired in July of 1996 on a
year-round basis.[279]
Her job description still
read “Resident Naturalist,” but that did not begin to convey the
responsibilities heaped upon her in this position. When Svenson was
hired, Steve Sundby was the only other Biology staff member who was teaching
labs, and he was only responsible for teaching and writing curriculum for two
labs. Svenson was hired to “run” Ordway as well as teach and write
curriculum for two labs, Ecology and Physiology. To make matters worse,
the Physiology lab curriculum Svenson was presented with was not very complete,
so she ended up practically rewriting the lab curriculums, one of which managed
to incorporate plant physiology and a little work at Ordway. However
successful Svenson was at such multitasking, it definitely compromised the
Ordway half of her job description: during the academic year, she estimates
that 75-85% of her time was devoted to teaching responsibilities, and the other
15-25% she spent “trying to keep balls in the air at Ordway.” Svenson
felt that the result of making the Resident Naturalist do so much was that
“Ordway was not as well cared for as it could be,” and she believed that
Macalester should either commit a full-time person to Ordway or just sell the
place.[280]
Clearly, one person should not have been saddled with such a variety of
time-consuming responsibilities.
Svenson did not seem to receive
a great deal of support from the Biology Department; she didn’t even have any
student workers to help her out until the second summer she was there, and even
then it was only two or three positions. Svenson said that the Biology
Department had a very “hands-off” approach to the management of Ordway and she
felt like she was effectively the Director of Ordway, even though Dan Hornbach
held that title for most of the time she was there: “I was effectively the
manager of Ordway,” she said. Svenson hinted that she would have liked
for the extent of her responsibilities to have been better represented in her
job description, but that her requests were never granted.[281]
While Svenson was Resident
Naturalist, Ordway enjoyed a use that was fairly similar to what Shreffler had
experienced. Mark Davis and Dan Hornbach continued to use Ordway for
their Ecology and Aquatic Ecology classes, respectively. Susanna
McMaster’s Geography classes used Ordway for different purposes, one of which
was writing an Environmental Impact Assessment for the National Park Service’s
Mississippi River trail that was proposed to cut through Ordway’s property.[282]
Svenson remembered that Macalester’s Virginia Card brought her Ecology classes
out every week, and thought that she probably used it more than any other
teacher did. Inver Hills Community College, St. Thomas University, and
Hamline University classes also made use of Ordway, although less regularly.[283]
Apart from the research done by
classes, Svenson remembers very few research projects being carried out at
Ordway, except that Laura Phillips did an honors project there and someone did
a pollen history. Svenson shared Shreffler’s desire to burn at Ordway,
and she actually carried out two woodland burns[284] and about three prairie burns while
she was there.[285]
Svenson was quite impressed with the quality of the habitats at Ordway,
especially considering that it lies within the Metro Area. Svenson felt like
Ordway was most valuable as a preserve/reserve of high quality native
habitats. Unlike others who opined that research at Ordway was limited by
its size, Svenson felt its research utility was limited by, if anything, the
high quality of the land, since it would be difficult to justify doing invasive
or potentially destructive studies there.[286]
Despite the trials imposed on
her by the position description and her on-campus responsibilities, Svenson was
still nostalgic about the experience of living and working at Ordway: “It was
sure neat living there.[287]”
New Directions for
Ordway (1998-2001)
This most recent period in
Ordway’s history has been characterized by renewed staffing and hopes for
Ordway. The Resident Naturalist position has been revised and a plan has
been drafted for Ordway’s future. New ideas are challenging the old ideas
of how Ordway should be run.
Under new Management
Elizabeth Svenson left
Ordway in August 1999. While Macalester was busy looking for someone to
fill Svenson’s job description, Laura Phillips, a Macalester alumna, lived at
Ordway.[288]
Macalester was unable to find a suitable candidate that was willing to take on
the difficult position of teaching two labs and managing 280 acres off-campus,[289] so the
position of Resident Naturalist was again revised to include Ordway work plus
Ecology lab teaching responsibilities on-campus, clearly a more compatible
combination, and the name was also changed to Assistant Director to reflect the
increased responsibility and authority at Ordway. According to Mark
Davis, “In a real sense, we’re sort of moving back towards the Christman
model…we’ve reduced Janet [Ebaugh]’s on-campus responsibility…to Ecology lab to
give her more time to be allocated to Ordway.” This revision was
again very intentional: “we felt that the split between the Ordway expectations
and the teaching expectations was really proving to be difficult and somewhat
stressful for the person, since it wasn’t really clear which was their primary
role.[290]”
Svenson, who experienced this stress firsthand, felt that by retooling the job
description Macalester really showed a renewed commitment to Ordway:
I am
really, really pleased that they’ve redesigned the position of the person who’s
in charge of [Ordway]…I think at that point they made the decision that ‘yes,
Ordway is important enough to us that we’re going to do something with it.’[291]
The Environmental Studies
program description had not changed significantly since the late 1970’s, except
for the addition of Philosophy and Political Science faculty around 1996.[292] With
the arrival of the first real Environmental Studies faculty member, Aldemaro
Romero, the description changed slightly:
Environmental Studies
is…based on a holistic understanding of environmental issues occurring at the
local, national, and global level. The program offers students tools and
perspectives from the humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences to
understand the causes and consequences of environmental problems and the
knowledge to develop potential solutions.[293]
Faculty from History,
International Studies, and Education joined the team of professors steering the
program, and a redesigned introductory course, an upper-level topics course
open only to Environmental Studies majors, and an ethics course were added to
the requirements.[294]
Professor Aldemaro Romero
came to Macalester in the fall of 1998 as an Environmental Studies faculty and
the Director of the Environmental Studies Program, and later received a joint
appointment as a Biology faculty. In the interview process, he said, it
was mentioned that Ordway existed, but he was never actually shown the property
until he went out to Ordway in the middle of his first semester here. He
says both the size and the potential of Ordway impressed him: “My first
impression was: this is an extremely underutilized place.[295]”
In January of 1999, the
Biology Department had a retreat, during which some departmental
responsibilities were delegated. Dan Hornbach was the Director of Ordway
at that time, and when the discussion turned to KONHSA’s management, Romero
offered any help he might give based on his previous experiences. Romero
had been a director of an environmental organization in Venezuela, which owned
many biological preserves, so he felt that he would be well suited for the task
of directing and developing Ordway. “Hornbach basically immediately
passed his job on to me, as director of the place.[296]”
Romero took the opportunity
to find a new employee who was best suited to his idea of the potential for
Ordway. Janet Ebaugh was hired in 1999 on the merits of her previous
experience with managing large parcels of land and grant-writing skills.[297]
Romero and Ebaugh are both very motivated on Ordway’s behalf. Elizabeth
Svenson seemed very optimistic about Ordway’s future in their hands:
From
what I can tell, Al is really interested in Ordway, he really wants to make it
‘the jewel of the college.’ And I think that’s great; Ordway really needs
someone like him, at a higher-up level than part-time staff. I think the
combination of Al and Janet is really great for the future of Ordway.[298]
Under the redesigned
Assistant Director position, Ebaugh only teaches Ecology labs, but she is also
very busy writing grants to support Ordway’s budget: according to the National
Science Foundation itself, just doing the paperwork for one of their grants is
estimated to take 120 hours, not counting writing the proposal. Also,
since Ordway has very little custodial service, Ebaugh herself puts a lot of
time into keeping the facilities clean,[299] which is not an easy task considering hundreds of students a week
track dirt into the lab and other parts of the building. While things are
getting better, there is still obvious room to improve support for the
Assistant Director position.
Already, the use of Ordway
has been rejuvenated. From January-December 2000 (including the summer
months), Ordway was used for 1024 Macalester student-days (1097 student visits
including students from other colleges; a graphic representation of the use can
be found in Figure 18).[300] Over half of the use was still by Macalester students for
academic purposes, but the number of days put in by volunteers and student
employees is increasingly impressive. Less than 7% of the use was by
non-Macalester students, which reminds us that even though use within our own
community is increasing again, we must continue to reach outside Macalester’s
borders in order to maximize Ordway’s use and outreach potential.
Old Ghosts at Ordway
Many of the problems that
were mentioned in the Physical Plant section of Christman’s old quarterly
reports were still problems when Romero became Director, and continue to be
problems. It was (is) evident that such issues had been avoided for years
for various reasons, but basically out of blatant neglect and
irresponsibility.
One of the problems that
came up during this most recent search for an Assistant Director was the fact
that “the living accommodations are not precisely very good,” as Romero
diplomatically put it. Although this wasn’t a problem for the candidates
this time, it is foreseeable that an excellent candidate in the future could be
married or have children, in which case the Assistant Director’s apartment is
clearly substandard in size as well as being so near to the lab. Other
infrastructure problems have arisen, such as installing a connection to
Macalester’s computing network; although this may sound easy, it took over a
month to be finished.[301]
Many problems with the
building are related to safety and compliance in addition to the comfort
issues: although the building was in compliance with 1969’s standards, it is
now sadly out of shape.[302] The building is not accessible to disabled persons, which
would only require adding a wheelchair ramp and making one bathroom accessible.[303]
There has not even been a Maximum Occupancy determined for the laboratory
building to conform to fire codes. This may seem like a nit-picky
concern; however, many grant applications require compliance with all codes and
safety regulations. In fact, the guidelines for National Science
Foundation grants explicitly state that “Field stations… funded in whole or in
part with National Science Foundation funds, must be accessible to people with
disabilities.[304]”
Since Ordway in the future may have to rely heavily on grants to meet its
future goals, this is of great concern.
Since the boundaries of
Macalester’s property are not clearly marked with fences or signs,[305] the
security issues of hunting and trespassing continue, as well as other safety
issues: “we don’t know when one of these guys is going to shoot a student
thinking he’s a deer…there have been fires…from having the train there, …we’re
dealing with the issue of urban sprawl.[306]” Hunters are still a concern: one of the “No Trespassing/
No Hunting” signs at Ordway was torn down and vandalized during a recent
hunting season.[307]
Romero concludes, “so many things that should have been taken care of earlier
are still [problems], so it’s been very frustrating.[308]”
The aforementioned problems
with the KONHSA infrastructure led Romero to conclude that “not only
geographically, but also psychologically, Ordway has been far away from the
College.” To counteract this “out of sight, out of mind” mentality,
Romero first took President McPherson, who had never been, to visit
Ordway. He also gave tours to staff from Admissions, College Relations,
and Development, many of whom had never been either, but who tout Ordway’s
benefits frequently in the course of their work in College Public Relations.
Still, it is simply too convenient for faculty, staff, and administration to
forget Ordway exists, and “people have trouble understanding that despite the
fact that it is 25 minutes away from here, it is as much a property of
Macalester as anything else.[309]”
A New Committee
The Ordway Committee was
formed by Romero and Ebaugh in order to address some of these problems and to
see that KONHSA grows into the future. This committee has been quite
successful in attracting members from different interests regarding the area,
including representatives from the DNR, the local schools, the city, the Koch
Refinery, nonprofit Mississippi River organizations, “but none of the meetings
have been attended by a single person from Physical Plant…so there is still a
bone of contention there.” Of course, this committee needs to deal
with many issues that have been ignored for too long. “Even the web page
location has been an issue,” Romero says, because the Ordway page used to be
linked through the Biology Departmental page, but the Macalester Webmaster
thought it should be an independent link, which was “a point of contention with
Biology.” The budget, although more carefully looked after these days, is
still a difficult and surprisingly confusing subject: “there has been a lot of
confusion about [the budget], because traditionally it has been under the
Biology budget, [but] when it comes to repairs and maintenance…the money’s not
there.” Romero also summarized the frustration of the whole committee: “we
have encountered tremendous difficulties in terms of getting things done.[310]”
Despite the sense of
frustration felt by the committee, frustration is at least a sign that a group
of people is attempting to make a consensus and take action on behalf of Ordway’s
well being. There is certainly well founded optimism for the future of
Ordway.
The
Future of Ordway
Everyone has, in the past,
had his or her very strong opinions about Ordway and how it should be
managed. Perhaps now we can say that we’ve learned from past mistakes and
gained perspective on Ordway and its purpose as the area has evolved along with
the college and the disciplines. Ordway needs a clear vision to move into
the future, and this can most effectively come from an individual or group of
individuals who are passionate and willing to implement this vision. It
seems that Christman was definitely one-of-a-kind, but perhaps improving the
salary and living facilities for the Assistant Director could encourage someone
to remain in that position for longer than a few years at a time, since the
quick turnover has made it difficult for even the most focused Assistant
Directors to really implement their visions.
A New Vision for the Future
The August 1998 draft of “A
Vision for Ordway” outlines Ordway’s two-pronged mission and compares it to the
vision in the 1960’s. On one hand, it says that the mission now and then
is the same: “To be an outdoor laboratory…provide opportunities for research
and learning to Macalester and the community.” However, it identifies the
other “prong” of the mission today as “To restore and preserve native habitats
and populations of local, regional and national ecological value,” while in the
1960’s the mission was evidently “To protect the landscape and its habitats as
found by Katharine Ordway.” It says that “the moment is ripe for action
on the part of Macalester,” and certainly makes a compelling case for the
renewal of KONHSA into the 21st century.[311] The strategic plan for Ordway’s future, written by Romero
and Ebaugh, mainly calls for the renewal of KONHSA as an area of multiple uses,
both within and without Macalester College, since it has been used almost
exclusively by the Biology Department excepting a few trips by Geology and
Geography classes in recent years.[312] Romero is hopeful about Ordway’s future: “I think the
money’s there, the potential is great for the place, but we need some
leadership from the top.[313]”
Education in the Future
Education has almost always
been the primary mission and practical use of Ordway, in whatever
capacity. When key players in the Ordway story were asked what direction
KONHSA might take in the future, everyone was very excited about the potential
for different sorts of education to take place at the area. There were
some very creative and bold ideas that ought to be taken into consideration now
that there is a framework that could potentially implement some of these new
ideas.
From the Environmental
Studies viewpoint, Romero said,
We would like to use
[KONHSA] as a tool to attract more minorities into the program.
Traditionally, Environmental Studies and Science has had a very poor minority
representation, that is largely cultural by the fact that traditionally,
environmental issues are dominated by middle class, white, suburban
Americans. And many of the inner-city kids don’t have exposure to nature,
like visiting a National Park.[314]
Therefore, he and Ebaugh
have been considering the idea of a summer camp at Ordway for inner-city youth,
which would not only expose them to Environmental Studies, but could ultimately
lead some of those students to ultimately come to Macalester’s program.
However, this would also require some changes in the building (but what
doesn’t): “The place is not ready for education. I mean, you can
take a group there for the weekend, but that’s about as far as you can go,
given the current infrastructure.[315]” This sort of initiative would be a wonderful vehicle for
expressing Macalester’s commitment to the community and service therein.
Since Ordway’s inception,
the preponderance of use by the Biology Department has been troubling to many,
but challenged by few. Davis offers the following sentiment: “It would be
nice if it were used by other departments more. Certainly, the Environmental
Studies Program could, if it wanted to, incorporate it more into the program.[316]”
“Obviously [Ordway] needs to be used by other people,” agrees Romero, “it can
be used by artists…as a place for…classes like Nature Writing, for example.[317]” There are
numerous creative solutions to diversifying Ordway’s use within Macalester.
Hornbach suggested that
there is a great deal of potential for incorporating Urban Studies students
into Ordway’s use, since a Natural History Study Area that is within a city
limits as well as lying well within the Twin Cities metro area has some
intrinsically interesting aspects regarding the impact of urban sprawl and its
interactions with the land around it. According to Hornbach, the City of
Inver Grove Heights has mentioned integrating Ordway into its “green plan,”
which might have interesting consequences considering Dakota County has a
terrible reputation for preservation of greenspace (or lack thereof).[318]
The Ordway building itself
could also prove an interesting testing ground for the principles of “green
architecture,” as exemplified by Oberlin College. Hornbach felt that
since the building obviously will require a good deal of remodeling within the
next several years, it might as well become a sort of experiment in itself.[319]
Davis echoed this idea, postulating that it would be wonderful to use Ordway as
a demonstration area for
…other things, such as
alternative energy and power sources, like the building itself, up there on a
hill, you can get lots of wind, as much sunshine as you can get up here…it’s
kind of facing south, so as much sun as we get it could really capitalize on
it…That would be one way to get Physics more involved in the Environmental
Studies Program.[320]
Elizabeth Svenson brought up
a similar idea for a new structure, also emphasizing the fact that the present
accommodations impose practical limits on the future Assistant Directors and
that the person who resides at Ordway should have a separate house.[321]
Davis also suggested making
the restoration and environmental education programs at Ordway more explicitly
defined, since historically, Environmental Studies students with interests in
those areas have gone elsewhere, to other nature centers, for experience and
internships.[322] It
is certainly possible to provide such students with interesting work at our own
field station, which would benefit Ordway, the students, and Macalester College
in very tangible ways.
Community Service in the
Future
One of Macalester’s
strongest tenets is that of service to the community outside our own.
Rarely has Ordway been formally integrated into this pillar of the college,
however, Davis made an excellent case for such incorporation:
“I think it could be used
more, and should be used more, for community outreach efforts. Some might
argue with that—should that be the mission of the college…Fine arts, for
example, does outreach trying to get the community on campus to their events
and to inform them, and to be an asset to the community in the arts. I
think Ordway, likewise, should be viewed by the college as an asset; not only
to our Macalester community members, but to the larger community, as a source
of education on nature, environmental issues, an so on. It could be part
of Macalester’s commitment to the larger community. The service component
should apply not only to individuals, but to the college as well.[323]
While Macalester makes great
efforts to interact with the larger community, Ordway has been largely
overlooked as a hotbed of potential community involvement.
Beth Svenson suggested ways
to improve volunteerism at Ordway within the Macalester community. She
thought it would be very effective to incorporate non-student volunteers into a
management team so that at least some people within the corps of volunteers
would have a tenure of more than four years at Macalester. This could
create a more diverse group that was better trained in activities like burn
management and would also have a greater longevity into the future.[324]
Research in the Future
Romero disagrees with the
sentiments expressed by many of his colleagues in that he believes that Ordway
could be very useful for research, but its potential hasn’t been tapped.[325] He
directed a research project on quaking aspen at Ordway, and is excited about the
unique possibilities presented by the “peninsula, which ecologically speaking
is an island” that extends into River Lake and has rarely been ventured
onto. “I can think of a myriad of things” to research at Ordway, Romero
said, suggesting that it should be more publicized in order to find researchers
who would like to work there.[326] Janet Ebaugh is interested in studying the genetic
similarities between the now-disjunct aspen stands in order to find out if the
stands are all part of the same “family.[327]” Ebaugh also suggests continuing previous studies that have
been done on the prairie soil in order to determine how old the prairie is.[328]
“I think the problem is that
there is no one with vested interest in that area. And when that happens
they will say, ‘oh, there’s no potential for research.’ Of course there’s
potential for research, in many areas,” for example Geography, Geology, “Come
on—there’s always potential for research. It’s a large area, it’s not
someone’s backyard,” Romero said, pointing out that “If Mendel founded the
science of genetics cultivating peas in the backyard of a monastery, imagine
what you can do at Ordway.[329]” Obviously, the subject of research is only limited by
one’s imagination.
Funding in the Future
Romero has spoken with Ford
Nicholson, a descendant of Katharine Ordway and a current Trustee of
Macalester, regarding continuing funding for the area, as well as the
possibility of a sort of Ordway family reunion at Ordway to celebrate the life
and work of Katharine Ordway.[330]
“There are real fiscal
realities;” Davis pointed out, “the college is under several fiscal constraints
right now…Ordway may have to do a lot of its own fundraising.”
Fundraising issues, however, mean that most of it has to go through the Development
Office because they don’t want individual groups within the college tapping the
same alumni and foundations that the whole college does.[331]
Elizabeth Svenson mentioned that restoring a decent endowment for Ordway would
be useful from a financial standpoint, but also as a display of commitment from
Macalester.[332] The
possibility of outside grants to support educational, research, and service
missions at Ordway is a great resource; however, the infrastructure must be
improved before these avenues can be lucrative.
Management in the Future
“I think the college
does need to make some kind of decision about Ordway,” concluded Davis, “and
give some kind of signal to people like Al [Romero] and Janet [Ebaugh] as far
as what their intent is. …So in some respects, I think it’s really in
their hands to develop a vision and then sell it to the college to endorse it.[333]”
In the future, Ordway can be
a true source of pride for Macalester College. However, bragging rights
must be earned, and a concerted effort must be made to collect ideas and to
implement them in a timely manner. It is high time that Ordway got the
attention it so deserves from its parent institution.
Conclusions
The Katharine Ordway Natural
History Study Area can have a positive future if we attempt to learn from its
history. Ordway may have gotten off to a slow start, yet the principles
and missions behind its foundation were solid and optimistic, if not entirely
realistic.
The acquisition of Ordway
may have started some of the problems. KONHSA’s acquisition was mainly
handled by administration at Macalester, and it seems that the Biology
Department had very little control over that process, even though it was
ultimately to become their jurisdiction. This appears to be a case of
“the cart before the horse;[334]” Macalester jumped on the land when it became available, but
really hadn’t prepared an appropriate on-campus nursery where Ordway might grow
and flourish. Instead, it was purchased before there was any management
body set up to receive it, and in some ways forced upon a department which
seemed to have plenty of its own problems during that period.
In the 1970’s, to the
further detriment of the young Ordway, Macalester happened upon bad times
financially. The money which was rightly supposed to be dedicated to
Ordway, and which Ordway needed, was curiously absorbed into the College’s
general budget and allocated elsewhere, leaving Christman alone to run Ordway
with few resources and little support. Ordway became the paw that
Macalester chose to gnaw off[335] when it entered hard times.
Even though the newly
created Environmental Studies program was also struggling through these times,
there was no effort made for the two to provide one another with mutual
support, even after the Biology Department had essentially forgotten Ordway in
favor of indulging in their own intradepartmental squabbling. Although
not incorporating Ordway into the Environmental Studies Program was not
necessarily a mistake, it might have fostered a greater interdisciplinary use
for Ordway, and I would propose that it was a missed opportunity, like the
missed land purchases in the 1970’s. Further, the use of Ordway became
steadily lower and more homogeneously devoted to the education of Macalester Biology
students during the 1970’s.
Perhaps the lowered morale
and budget also lowered the expectations for Ordway, thereby decreasing the
perceived potential for the “natural history study area,” and Macalester seemed
to forget the vast variety of usage Ordway had enjoyed in its first year and
the optimistic proposals that had been written. During this first decade,
Ordway was so close to Macalester, yet so far away from the college’s
collective consciousness.
Also thanks to the
coincidence of the financial crisis with Ordway’s formative years, and probably
due to miscommunications, benefactors and benefactresses became angry with
Macalester just when they were needed most. Perhaps the College had the
best of intentions to rectify the situation at Ordway once the financial crisis
passed, but the problems were ignored, passed on to others, and essentially
allowed to snowball for over a decade. By the time Christman retired, it
had been such a long time since anyone had addressed those problems that they
were too large to handle. The politics and bitterness surrounding the
area seem to have cast a shadow over it, so that everyone was a bit wary of
getting too involved in the fate of Ordway.
Attempts were made, after
Christman left, to rekindle the connections between Macalester and
Ordway. However, these attempts were mostly based on hires of faculty and
staff into positions that were intrinsically not dedicated to Ordway, as
Christman had been. Macalester was trying to work within the flawed system
it had created instead of recreating a system that was centered on Ordway’s
well being. No matter how enthusiastic the Ordway Resident Naturalists
were, they were stretched very thin by the position descriptions and they had
few resources or support at their disposal. Furthermore, the messy task of
managing Ordway has been consistently assigned to junior faculty members.
Not only do such faculty have plenty of other things to be concerned with,
their power within the college is not great. Assigning the on-campus
responsibility to a junior faculty, and assigning too many
responsibilities to the off-campus staff in charge of Ordway, are indicative
the generally low priority given to Ordway and its management in the past.
A feeling of isolation has
also shrouded Ordway’s past. Those who have worked there or done research
there have felt isolated from Macalester and from the larger community.
This sentiment makes people even more wary of getting involved with
Ordway. We must dispel this myth by making it impossible—incorporating
Ordway so inexorably into the structure and values of Macalester College that
it is as much a part of the campus as Old Main or Summit House.
Finally, today, Ordway is
slowly gaining the commitment it deserves from Macalester. A viable managing
body has been created and a plan for its future has been drawn up.
Connections are being made with organizations outside Macalester in order to
provide support. Ultimately, Ordway has survived through some very
difficult times, yet Macalester has never abandoned it completely.
Murmurings of selling Ordway were heard, but it has not been sold. Some
have even wished Ordway would go away, but it has not disappeared yet.
The Katharine Ordway Natural History Study Area is an invaluable resource for
education, an important preserve within the Twin Cities, provides opportunities
for interdisciplinary use and outreach to the community, has untapped research
possibilities—and Macalester College owns it! It is essential
that the College take full responsibility for the support and development of
the Katharine Ordway Natural History Study Area well into the future, to make
it the “jewel” of Macalester that it deserves to be.
Footnotes
[1] And I must thank those people who helped keep me sane and focused
during the writing of my thesis: my parents, Cynthia and Alan Paulson,
and my houemants and best friends. [2] Resident Naturalist at Ordway from 1970-1984.
Interviewed on 5 April 2001, 9:00-11:00 am, at Dunn Brothers Coffee on Grand
and Snelling, St. Paul.
[3] A professor on the Biology faculty since 1981, Davis used
Ordway for classes, his own research, and served as Director of Ordway in the
mid-1980’s. Interviewed on 29 March 2001, 10:00-10:45 am, at Macalester
College, St. Paul [interview recorded].
[4] The Assistant Director of KONHSA from 1999 to the present,
Janet was a great help in providing information and direction, and walking with
me around the Ordway property for the sake of inspiration and my sanity.
A smattering of “personal communications” from her dot this paper, which
reflect her constant input and feedback on this project, as well as a more
formal phone interview on 1 May 2001.
[5] Macalester’s ArcView wizard, Carol was a great help in
creating the homemade maps for this project, and has been doing a great deal of
work on her own to digitize and georeference old air photos of Ordway.
Also, thanks to Siri Eggebraten for producing the maps.
[6] Currently the Assistant to the President and Secretary to
the Board of Trustees, Mr. Hill served various positions in the Development
office during Ordway’s formative years (1970’s). Interviewed on 26 March
2001, 1:00-1:30 p.m., at Macalester College, St. Paul [parts of interview
recorded].
[7] Biology faculty, Biology chair from 1978-1988, and
Director of Ordway in the late 1970’s. Interviewed on 27 March 2001,
10:30-11:00 am, at Macalester College, St. Paul [interview recorded].
[8] Biology faculty since 1984, Hornbach used Ordway for his
classes, his own research, and served as Director in the late 1980’s.
Interviewed on 15 March 2001, 9:30-10:00 am, at Macalester College, St. Paul.
[9] For every citation that says [Macalester College
archives], we must thank and applaud Ms. Kerkvliet, Macalester’s archivist, for
her help.
[10] Sharron Nelson, of the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources’ Natural Heritage Program, was incredibly helpful with DNR
information.
[11] I know I echo the sentiment of many when I say: what would
the Biology Department do without Patty?
[12] Environmental Studies faculty since 1998, and Director of
Ordway since 1999. Interviewed 6 April 2001, 10:30-11:00 a.m., Macalester
College, St. Paul [interview recorded]; Dr. Romero has also been a great
adviser and help to me, both with this project and with others. He is an
excellent professor and has done a great deal for the Environmental Studies
Program at Macalester.
[13] Resident Naturalist at Ordway 1988-1995. Interviewed
27 March 2001, 2:00-2:45 p.m., Neighborhood Energy Consortium, St. Paul [interview
recorded].
[14] The outside/inside examiner for this thesis; Mr. Southwick
taught in the Geology Department and was coordinator of the Environmental
Studies Program in some of its early years at Macalester. He is currently
working for the United States Geological Survey.
[15] The history man. Professor Stewart provided
necessary direction and historical assistance for this paper, as its author is
(was) not technically a historian.
[16] Resident Naturalist at Ordway 1996-1999. Interviewed
9 April 2001, 1:00-2:00 p.m., at the Metro Region DNR Offices, St. Paul
[interview recorded].
[17] One of the funny things about this history is the
variation in the original and current acreage of Ordway. External as well
as internal sources have chronically disagreed on the area of the land owned by
Macalester. In fact, the college course catalog for 1968 said it was 270
acres. The next year’s catalog listed Ordway under both the “Buildings
and Facilities” section, where it was suddenly claimed to be 280 acres, even
though the description under the Biology Department in this very same catalog
continued to call it 270 acres. This discrepancy lasted for years.
278 acres is the most accurate figure I have found for its current size,
considering Macalester’s original purchase was 276 acres and two additional
acres have been added since then. However, the land was apparently
surveyed incorrectly in the first place according to Richard Christman, and it
hasn’t been surveyed since, and some of his sources peg the size at about 300
acres. Therefore it appears there is no correct figure.
[18] Environmental Studies 55: Environmental Analysis and
Problem Solving, Management Plan for the Katharine Ordway Natural History
Study Area, 2 October 2000.
[19] EnviroThursday presentation by Janet Ebaugh, 5 November
2000 [video on file in Environmental Studies Office, Macalester College].
[20] Interview with Richard J. Christman, 5 April 2001.
[21] “Inver Grove Heights” official website: http://www.ci.inver-grove-heights.mn.us.
[22] According to the Land Use History by Mark Davis, the oaks
were cleared from the property about 1980. However, according to Janet
Ebaugh (14 April 2001 e-mail), when the DNR surveyed the property they were
unable to find stumps or any other evidence of forest clearance. On 30
April 2001, Ebaugh reiterated the lack of stumps on the property, and also said
that commercial logging in that area focused on pines and ended around 1835; there
are no pines on the Ordway property. It is likely, then, that the oaks
were never subject to a wholesale clearance at Ordway, and small-scale farming
and grazing probably did not disturb the woodland to this extent.
[23] “History of the Area,” by the Biology Department ca.
1985 [KONHSA archives].
[24] EnviroThursday presentation by Janet Ebaugh, 5 November
2000 [video on file in Environmental Studies Office, Macalester College].
[25] The 1871 date comes from both the above-cited presentation
and the Environmental Studies 55 paper Management Plan for the Katharine
Ordway Natural History Area 2 October 2000. However, according to a
pollen history of Ordway by Kiersten Redborg (under Professor Virginia Card),
the first railroad line was laid in 1886 (Janet Ebaugh, personal communication
30 April 2001).
[26] Both railroad lines are now owned by Union Pacific (Janet
Ebaugh, personal communication).
[27] Interview with Richard J. Christman, 5 April 2001.
[28] Interview with Eddie Hill, 27 March 2001; for those
familiar with the layout of the area, it seems the most likely place for this
“stockyard” was in the depression/clearing between the two sets of tracks, but
this is only speculation.
[29] EnviroThursday presentation by Janet Ebaugh, 5 November
2000 [video on file in Environmental Studies Office, Macalester College]
I wasn’t able to find an exact date of purchase by the Hulmes.
[30] In “History of the Area,” written by the Biology
Department sometime around 1985, the owner’s names are listed as “Mr. Rank and
Mr. Huly.” We are assuming, perhaps wrongly, that these are the
“Mr. Rand and Mr. Hulmes” referred to in the other sources.
[31] There are some old dock pilings down by River Lake that
could very well be a remnant of this camp.
[32] Environmental Studies 55: Environmental Analysis and
Problem Solving, Management Plan for the Katharine Ordway Natural History
Study Area, 2 October 2000.
[33] “History of the Area,” Biology Department, ca. 1985
[KONHSA archives].
[34] There is a spring near the river that actually stays open
all year round; quite a phenomenal thing to see in the winter.
[35] Interview with Richard J. Christman, 5 April 2001.
[36] “History of the Area,” Biology Department, ca. 1985
[KONHSA archives].
[37] “Inver Grove Heights” official website:
http://www.ci.inver-grove-heights.mn.us.
[38] It is not entirely clear if the “Hulmes” who Macalester
bought the land from were actually the same people as the “Hulys” who are
mentioned a couple times as having owned the land around 1950.
[39] Interview with Richard J. Christman, 5 April 2001.
[40] Land Use History of KONHSA prepared by Mark Davis for
Biology 24 class, fall 1997 [KONHSA archives].
[41] More specifically, KONHSA contains a Dry Prairie
(southeast; Sand-Gravel subtype), Oak Woodland-Brushland (southeast), Mesic
Prairie (southeast), and a Black Ash Swamp (seepage subtype). Further
descriptions of how these natural communities are defined can be found in
Appendices A-D, taken from the Minnesota DNR Natural Community Key, Version 1.5.
[42] Endangered.
[43] No longer tracked by the DNR.
[44] Endangered.
[45] Threatened.
[46] Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage
Program database, March 2001.
[47] Interview with Aldemaro Romero, 6 April 2001.
[48] Interview with Elizabeth Svenson, 9 April 2001.
[49] I encountered some disagreements and misunderstandings
regarding whether the prairie was indeed a remnant. Svenson believed that
it was, but others mentioned the lack of pristine environments at Ordway.
However, tests of the soil of the prairie near the building showed that it was
the very distinctive soil type enjoyed by prairie that takes hundreds of years
to develop (Janet Ebaugh, 13 April 2001 e-mail). Furthermore, a pollen
history done at Ordway by Kierstin Redborg (under Professor Virginia Card)
indicated that the prairie had been around for quite some time, since pollen
from the grasses was found in the sediment core back even before the railroads
were put in (i.e., late 1800’s). So we conclude that this is, by most definitions,
remnant prairie, although it has probably been disturbed in the past.
[50] Environmental Studies 55: Environmental Analysis and
Problem Solving, Management Plan for the Katharine Ordway Natural History
Study Area, 2 October 2000.
[51] Avery Cook, personal communication 26 April 2001.
[52] Again, discrepancies regarding the acreage came up
throughout the course of my research. The 110-acre figure comes from
earlier and more consistent documents, but in the Environmental Studies 55 Management
Plan for the Katharine Ordway Natural History Study Area, the figure of 125
acres is given.
[53] Interview with Richard J. Christman, 5 April 2001.
[54] In the ES 55 Management Plan for the Katharine Ordway
Natural History Study Area, it says the old colloquial name for River Lake
was Metzler’s Slough, but no citation is given.
[55] Environmental Studies 55: Environmental Analysis and
Problem Solving, Management Plan for the Katharine Ordway Natural History
Study Area, 2 October 2000.
[56] Interview with Daniel Hornbach, 15 March 2001.
[57] Breining, Greg. “Days and Nights of the Urban
Mississippi.” Minnesota Monthly October 1987, pp. 34-41.
[58] Ibid. p. 40.
[59] Blair, W.D. Jr. Katharine Ordway: The Lady Who
Saved the Prairies. The Nature Conservancy, Washington DC: 1989, p.
14.
[60] Breton, M.J. Women Pioneers for the Environment.
Northeastern University Press, Boston: 1998. pp. 274-279.
[61] Associated Press. “Reclusive Lady’s $4 M Art
Collection Bequeathed to Yale.” Boston Globe, First Edition 9
November 1980 [KONHSA archives].
[62] Blair, W.D. Jr. Katharine Ordway: The Lady Who
Saved the Prairies. The Nature Conservancy, Washington DC: 1989, p.
13.
[63] “Katharine Ordway Associates: Katharine Ordway
Legacy.” The Nature Conservancy, 2000. http://tncnt.tnc.org/koa/level2_legacy.html
[hard copy in Development Office files].
[64] “Bird Checklists of the United States.” Northern
Prairie Wildlife Research Center, USGS, 2001. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/chekbird/r6/konzagen.htm
[hard copy in Development Office files].
[65] Interview with Alexander Hill, 26 March 2001.
[66] Interview with Richard J. Christman, 5 April 2001.
[67] Blair, W.D. Jr. Katharine Ordway: The Lady Who
Saved the Prairies. The Nature Conservancy, Washington DC: 1989, p.
13.
[68] Interview with Alexander Hill, 26 March 2001.
[69] Macalester Bulletin September 1961, Alumni number
[Macalester archives].
[70] Interview with Alexander Hill, 26 March 2001.
[71] Anonymous, undated Proposal for the Establishment of a
Macalester College Ecology Field Station and Laboratory. [KONHSA
archives and Appendix E of this paper] & “A Proposal to the Charles F.
Kettering Foundation for a Field Biology Laboratory for Macalester
College,” 21 November 1966 (anonymous) [KONHSA archives and Appendix F of
this paper].
[72] “College Acquires a Field Laboratory.” Macalester
Report August 1967 [Development Office files].
[73] Anonymous.
[74] Anonymous. “A Proposal to the Charles F. Kettering
Foundation for a Field Biology Laboratory for Macalester College,” 21 November
1966.
[75] Development Office files, 20 April 1966.
[76] John Seale to Development Office files, 25 April 1966.
[77] Harvey Rice to Katharine Ordway, 25 April 1966
[Development Office files].
[78] Harvey Rice to Katharine Ordway, 1 February 1967
[Development Office files].
[79] memo from Harvey Rice to Edwin Robinson, John Dozier,
Lucius Garvin, L. Daniel Frenzel, Jr., and James Albert Jones, 13 February 1967
[KONHSA archives] See Appendix G.
[80] Deed, 3 April 1967 [copy in KONHSA files].
[81] Interview with Richard J. Christman, 5 April 2001.
[82] Macalester Today, 61:1 September 1972 (Alumni
Number) [Macalester College archives].
[83] Interview with Eddie Hill, 27 March 2001.
[84] Harvey Rice to Katharine Ordway, 12 May 1967 [Development
Office files].
[85] Other natural preserves that Katharine Ordway helped fund
usually bore indigenous names, at Ordway’s request.
[86] Harvey Rice to Katharine Ordway, 6 June 1967
[Development Office files].
[87] Although this nickname does occasionally lead to confusion
with the Ordway Music Theater in downtown St. Paul, especially among those less
familiar with the existence of KONHSA, this is how KONHSA will be referred to
for the majority of the paper.
[88] “Macalester Buys 276 Acres of Land.” Minneapolis
Star-Tribune 14 May 1967 [Development Office files].
[89] Saint Paul Pioneer Press 15 May 1967
[Development Office files].
[90] Why they chose to round the acreage down, I don’t
know.
[91] Macalester College Course Catalog, 1967-1968
[Macalester College archives].
[92] “College Acquires a Field Laboratory.” Macalester
Report August 1967 [Development Office files].
[93] Memo from John Dozier to Edwin Robinson, 5 June 1967
[Ebaugh file].
[94] Memo from Harvey Rice to John Dozier, 28 June 1967
[Ebaugh file].
[95] Memo from Edwin Robinson to Daniel Frenzel, 1 May
1968 [Ebaugh file].
[96] Just for the record, the Biology faculty that did care
were Eddie Hill, Daniel Frenzel, and James A. Jones, as evident by this
research as well as attested to by David Southwick, who taught in Geology
during this period. It should not escape the reader that, ironically,
Robinson is not one of the three who cared.
[97] Memo from Edwin Robinson to Kenneth Goodrich, 1 May
1968 [Ebaugh file].
[98] Dr. Jones was, according to James Stewart, one of the
founding members of Minnesota’s chapter of the Isaac Walton League, a
conservation organization. Jones himself was unavailable for interview,
as he now resides in Hawaii.
[99] Report by J. Albert Jones, 8 July 1969 [document #8
in KONHSA files].
[100] Interview with Eddie Hill, 27 March 2001; Eddie also
compared it to the U of M’s Itasca field station, in which case the greater
distance makes it more useful for long-term residential camps and field
study. Ordway was too close, in fact, to Macalester to make overnight
trips practical.
[101] Ibid.
[102] Report by J. Albert Jones, 8 July 1969 [document #8
in KONHSA files].
[103] All-faculty announcement, March 1969 [KONHSA files].
[104] James R. Blair, Webelos Den Leader, Pack 450 to J. Albert
Jones, 14 May 1969 [KONHSA files].
[105] Joe Reymann, Monroe Junior/Senior High School to J. Albert
Jones, 19 May 1969 [KONHSA files].
[106] Report by J. Albert Jones, 8 July 1969 [document #8
in KONHSA files].
[107] Ibid.
[108] J. Albert Jones to Katharine Ordway, 18 February
1970 [KONHSA files].
[109] Richard J. Christman’s Trail Guides [KONHSA files].
[110] I am referring here to the dozen or so buildings that
Macalester added to its skyline as a result of the highly successful Challenge
Campaign. See the section on “Acquisition.”
[111] Katharine Ordway Natural History Study Area Field Lab
Fund, January 1969 [KONHSA files].
[112] J. Albert Jones to Thomas Savage, 22 October 1969
[document #9 in KONHSA files].
[113] J. Albert Jones to Katharine Ordway, 18 February
1970 [KONHSA files].
[114] A bit of foreshadowing here. As the reader will
hopefully begin to realize, the fate of KONHSA has been largely tied to whoever
was most committed to its management at the time—a level of commitment which
has varied wildly over the years. This first long-term Resident
Naturalist was incredibly committed.
[115] Interview with Richard J. Christman, 5 April 2001.
[116] Richard J. Christman’s Quarterly Reports from KONHSA, from
1970-1984 [entire set in KONHSA files] Also see a few examples of
these in Appendices H and I.
[117] Interview with Richard J. Christman, 5 April 2001.
[118] McKee, Carol. “Hemit guards a hideaway that’s an
Inver Grove Trail nature study.” Mendota Heights Sun 1 December
1976, p. 7.
[119] Interview with Richard J. Christman, 5 April 2001.
[120] Hornbach knew Christman because he was the Director of
Ordway as well as a Biology Professor who took classes to Ordway in the early
1980’s.
[121] He was in fact wearing this hat when I met him.
[122] Interview with Daniel Hornbach, 15 March 2001.
[123] Like Hornbach, Davis interacted with Christman both as an
instructor and as Director of Ordway for some time in the 1980’s.
[124] Christman seemed to have a reputation for being a bit
chauvinist, or at least a member of the “old school” when it came to “women’s
lib.” However, when I met him he was nothing but a cordial gentleman.
[125] Interview with Mark Davis, 29 March 2001.
[126] Shreffler was the Resident Naturalist at KONHSA a few
years after Christman had retired.
[127] Interview with Shelley Shreffler, 27 March 2001.
[128] After hearing many stories about Christman—he is one of
those people whose name, mentioned briefly to someone who knew him, immediately
elicits some very colorful recollections—I was finally able to meet him.
I had just before found some photos of Christman in an old newspaper, and upon
walking into Dunn Bros it was immediately evident that this was the same man
whom I had seen in photographs taken nearly thirty years ago. He is relatively
small in stature, but by no means frail, with white hair that falls down the
back of his neck and a neatly trimmed white mustache. He has light blue
eyes with a mischievous twinkle in them, and he is quick to smile as he
reminisces about Ordway. He spoke to me in a very friendly manner—leaning
in close and sometimes lowering his voice, as if we were thick as thieves,
though we had just met. He certainly dispelled any apprehension I may
have had about meeting him after hearing some of the various stories about
him. He was quick-witted and never missed a chance to make a pun or
another sarcastic remark, and then he would follow up to make sure you
understood the joke, as if he was testing his company to see if they could be
his intellectual par. Our conversation was both delightful and
revealing. His love and respect for the land and nature was evident
whenever he spoke of it; he was modest and self-effacing in manner, and
constantly steered the conversation away from himself and back to the land.
[129] When I spoke to him, Christman mentioned the rock, and
quipped, “I used to sit and think on that rock…sometimes I’d just sit.”
Then he smiled, pleased with his own cleverness.
[130] Like I said, modest.
[131] McKee, Carol. “Hemit guards a hideaway that’s an
Inver Grove Trail nature study.” Mendota Heights Sun 1 December
1976, p.7.
[133] Interview with Richard J. Christman, 5 April 2001.
[134] Richard J. Christman’s “Ordway Bulletins,” #1-129
[KONHSA files].
[135] Interview with Richard J. Christman, 5 April 2001.
[136] Christman, Richard J. “A Death at Ordway.” Macalester
Today 3:1, October 1974 [Macalester College archives].
[137] President Davis once phoned Christman regarding a bird
that was pecking at its reflection in a window at the President’s house,
according to the interview with Christman. Christman’s advice was to put
masking tape on the inside of the window to break up its reflection, but the
bird should stop soon anyway since they weren’t territorial for terribly long.
Davis was evidently quite grateful for this help.
[138] Memo from John Davis to Richard J. Christman, 1977 [KONHSA
files].
[139] Read them for yourself and decide: see Appendix J for a
few examples.
[140] There were certainly various attempts at management during
this period, and we don’t mean to invalidate the early contributions of people
like J. Albert Jones and others. However, according to the research I
did, nearly every initiative or document during the 1970’s had its origin with
Richard Christman.
[141] This presumption is made on the basis of not only the
preponderance of documents by Christman during this time, but also the subject
matters and style of writing.
[142] Christman, Richard J. “Some Comments on Nature
Establishments.” Presented to a teacher’s workshop in November
1973. [document #18 in KONHSA files] See Appendix K.
[143] Ibid.
[144] Macalester College course catalogs, 1969-1978
[Macalester College archives]; it appears Claude Welch was the Biology
Department Chair during this entire period, except for the spring 1972 term,
when he was on leave.
[145] Macalester Today 2:2, November 1973, p. 6
[Macalester College archives].
[146] A recent manifestation of urban sprawl is the eyesore
called “Econo Cars” near Inver Grove Trail, a used car lot. Sadly, this
has become a landmark when giving directions to KONHSA.
[147] Macalester Today 2:2, November 1973, p. 6
[Macalester College archives].
[148] McKee, Carol. “Hemit guards a hideaway that’s an
Inver Grove Trail nature study.” Mendota Heights Sun 1 December
1976, p.7.
[149] This juxtaposition nicely illustrates Christman, in my
opinion.
[150] Interview with Eddie Hill, 27 March 2001.
[151] Macalester College Course Catalog, 1970-1971
[Macalester College archives].
[152] Macalester College Course Catalog, 1972-1973
[Macalester College archives].
[153] Mr. Asmussen, Mr. Southwick, or Mr. Webers.
[154] Macalester College Course Catalogs 1970-1980
[Macalester College archives].
[155] Macalester College Course Catalog, 1973-1974 and
1974-1975 [Macalester College archives].
[156] Macalester College Course Catalog, 1978-1980
[Macalester College archives].
[157] Macalester College Course Catalog, 1974-1975
[Macalester College archives].
[158] Christman, Richard J. Mac Weekly 24 January
1972 [document #12 in KONHSA archives].
[159] “Ordway Study Area Receives Support.” Macalester
College Bulletin 59:3, Spring 1971, p. 22 [KONHSA archives].
[160] “Seminar Presentation” by Richard J. Christman, March 1971
[document #13 in KONHSA archives; slides missing].
[161] “Ordway Nature Study Open.” Macalester College
Bulletin 60:6, March 1972 [Macalester College archives].
[162] Macalester Today, various issues [Macalester
College archives].
[163] “Nature Center Wet and Colorful” Macalester Today
2:2, November 1973 [Macalester College archives].
[164] Funny name, I know—and I found no mention of the Blue
Goose anywhere else, so I can’t say how it got that name, though I’m certain it
would be a more entertaining note than this.
[165] “Nature Center Wet and Colorful” Macalester Today
2:2, November 1973 [Macalester College archives].
[166] Christman, Richard J. “Some Comments on Nature
Establishments.” Presented to a teacher’s workshop in November 1973
[document #18 in KONHSA files].
[167] According to Elizabeth Svenson, the upper prairie at
Ordway is indeed a remnant patch of native prairie; at the very least, she is
certain that it has never been plowed (although probably grazed).
Therefore, any sort of destructive experiment would be awfully unwise considering
the rarity of remnant prairie lands. In contrast, Cedar Creek Natural
History Area (owned by the University of Minnesota), where Mark Davis has since
moved his research, is larger but is all “old fields;” that is, what is now
“prairie” was once all plowed up, so it doesn’t really matter how invasive the
research gets, it can’t be much worse than what was done to it under
cultivation. This is an important distinction to make between the two
areas.
[168] Richard J. Christman’s bird studies [KONHSA archives].
[169] Yes, this is the same man who warned me about the dangers
of anthropomorphizing.
[170] Jack Shields reports [KONHSA archives].
[171] See almost any of Christman’s Quarterly Reports from
1970-1984; nearly every one has a section entitled “Research at Ordway” which
chronicles a variety of projects [KONHSA archives].
[172] Interview with Richard J. Christman, 5 April 2001;
Christman also noted that despite Paul’s frontiersman attitude and fascination
with things primitive, he hailed from the not-so-rustic suburb of Edina;
Christman found this rather ironic.
[173] Quarterly Reports by Richard J. Christman, 1972, 1981 (in
fact, these research examples are in Appendices H and I).
[174] Probably in response to Savage’s suspicions that the area was
not being used much; more about this later.
[175] Eddie Hill to Thomas Savage, 27 April 1977 [KONHSA
archives] See Appendix L.
[176] Acquired from Mr. and Mrs. Willie Krech.
[177] John Dozier to Katharine Ordway, 18 October 1972 [KONHSA
archives].
[178] James Robinson to Katharine Ordway, 16 November 1972
[Development Office files].
[179] James Stewart, personal communication.
[180] Development files, 6 December 1972 [Development
Office files].
[181] James Robinson to DeWitt Wallace and A.L. Cole, 7 December
1972 [KONHSA archives].
[182] James Robinson to Katharine Ordway, 17 December 1972
[Development Office files].
[183] Considering the fact that Ordway had just donated a large
sum of money a few days before, one would think a cheery holiday card would
have sufficed for 1972.
[184] If only Katharine had known of the impending financial
crisis, she may not have been so quick to delegate the responsibility for
spending her money.
[185] Phone call from Katharine Ordway to Development Office,
December 1972 [Development Office files].
[186] Interview with Richard J. Christman, 5 April 2001; these
differences are easily noted by comparing Figures 3 and 5.
[187] Thomas Savage to Katharine Ordway, 17 June 1974 [document
#19 in KONHSA archives].
[188] Katharine Ordway to Thomas Savage, 24 June 1974 [KONHSA
files].
[189] Memo from Eddie Hill to Alexander Hill, 18 November
1976 [document #30 in KONHSA archives].
[190] Memo from Alexander Hill to Eddie Hill, 29 November
1976 [KONHSA archives].
[191] Interview with Eddie Hill, 27 March 2001.
[192] Interview with Alexander Hill, 26 March 2001.
[193] Of course, the explanation that Katharine Ordway was a bit
peeved and that Macalester was lacking money are not mutually exclusive: if you
bite the hand that feeds you, you’re likely to go hungry.
[194] Interview with Richard J. Christman, 5 April 2001.
[195] James Robinson to Katharine Ordway, 16 November 1972
[Development Office files].
[196] Katharine Ordway to James Robinson, 4 March 1974
[Development Office files, 8 March 1974].
[197] The fact that he called Katharine Ordway “that lady” and
insinuated that she lived in a habitat, rather than an estate, and also implied
she might not know when spring begins in Minnesota, is characteristic of
Christman’s tendency towards not mincing words, he was not being disrespectful
of Ordway.
[198] Memo by Richard J. Christman, March 1975 [KONHSA
archives].
[199] Ibid.
[200] Interview with Alexander Hill, 26 March 2001.
[201] Katharine Ordway was never married, nor did she ever have
any children.
[202] Interview with Eddie Hill, 27 March 2001; he was fairly
uncertain over whether or not she visited: “I think she did…yeah…I can’t tell
you for certain whether she was [here] or not.”
[203] Interview with Mark Davis, 29 March 2001.
[204] Interview with Richard J. Christman, 5 April 2001; he also
mentioned that he sent her an herbarium specimen of an Alyssum flower with a
note, which she responded to with a letter.
[205] Richard J. Christman’s Quarterly Reports, 1970-1984 [KONHSA
archives].
[206] Interview with Richard J. Christman, 5 April 2001.
[207] Ibid.
[208] Interview with Eddie Hill, 27 March 2001.
[209] Memo from Richard J. Christman to Eddie Hill, 21 September
1976 [document #27 in KONHSA archives].
[210] Memo from Eddie Hill to Richard J. Christman, 5 October
1976 [document #29 in KONHSA archives].
[211] Margaret Day to “Friends,” 22 September 1971
[Macalester College archives].
[212] Interview with Eddie Hill, 27 March 2001.
[213] Memo from Claude Welch to John Davis, 7 September 1976
[document #23 in KONHSA archives].
[214] Minutes of the Ordway Committee, 8 September 1976
[document #24 in KONHSA archives].
[215] Interview with Eddie Hill, 27 March 2001.
[216] Ibid.
[217] Ibid.
[218] Ibid.
[219] Ibid.
[220] Ibid.
[221] Ibid.
[222] Ibid.
[223] Richard J. Christman, Quarterly Report for July-September
1982 [KONHSA archives].
[224] Interview with Eddie Hill, 27 March 2001.
[225] i.e. Further from the collective consciousness of
Macalester.
[226] Interview with Daniel Hornbach, 15 March 2001.
[227] Interview with Mark Davis, 29 March 2001.
[228] Interview with Daniel Hornbach, 15 March 2001.
[229] Macalester College Course Catalogs 1980-1990
[Macalester College archives].
[230] Holes in the KONHSA archives occasionally represent
something else, however; for example, some documents have been thrown away by
people over the years, not knowing the importance of them, some have simply
been lost. However, I stand by the opinion that the more important the
document, the more likely it is to be kept, and therefore we can assume that
there were fewer documents of great import during this period.
[231] Eddie Hill was the Biology Department Chair in 1986.
James Smail was the Biology Chair between 1988-1993, according to the
Macalester College course catalogs [Macalester College archives].
[232] (Note that they are calling it “the Area” again!)
[233] But the budget he proposed was greater than zero,
and therefore an improvement.
[234] This grant did manage to secure funds from the COSIP
program.
[235] (Read: Jim Smail’s.)
[236] Memo from James Smail to Peter Conn, 20 November
1986 [document #33 in KONHSA archives].
[237] Interview with Shelley Shreffler, 27 March 2001.
[238] Ibid.
[239] Interview with Daniel Hornbach, 15 March 2001; some have
said that the boardwalk was stolen by thieves—I doubt that even the shadiest
river rats would risk prosecution for some waterlogged boards. Honestly,
the river is the most plausible culprit in this case.
[240] Interview with Mark Davis, 29 March 2001.
[241] Ibid.
[242] Memo from James Smail to Peter Conn, 20 November
1986 [document #33 in KONHSA archives].
[243] According to Shelley Shreffler, Clugston was still hired
under the 9-months-per-year plan, and Shreffler was the first Resident
Naturalist to be assigned to Ordway all year round.
[244] 1985 Budget Report for KONHSA [KONHSA archives].
[245] Memo from David Clugston to Peter Conn, 21 November
1986 [document #34 in KONHSA archives].
[246] Interview with Shelley Shreffler, 27 March 2001.
[247] Physical Plant Project Requests by David Clugston,
1987-1988 [document #39 in KONHSA archives].
[248] Interview with Shelley Shreffler, 27 March 2001.
[249] Semi-Annual Report by Shelley Shreffler, July-December
1988 [KONHSA archives].
[250] The position of Resident Naturalist is now known as
Assistant Director. It is unclear when the switch officially happened as
well as when Assistant Director became the preferred term in the Ordway
lexicon, so consider the two terms synonymous after this point.
[251] Interview with Shelley Shreffler, 27 March 2001.
[252] Ibid.
[253] Ibid.
[254] Shreffler did keep track of the numbers and types of visitors,
however, her records have since been lost so that it is impossible to make
quantitative comparisons.
[255] Interview with Shelley Shreffler, 27 March 2001.
[256] Ibid.
[257] Interview with Mark Davis, 29 March 2001.
[258] Interview with Shelley Shreffler, 27 March 2001.
[259] Interview with Mark Davis, 29 March 2001.
[260] Interview with Shelley Shreffler, 27 March 2001.
[261] While nothing was ever published on this research,
Shreffler did present a poster at a conference.
[262] This research was cut short due to a lack of funding.
[263] Interview with Shelley Shreffler, 27 March 2001.
[264] Interview with Mark Davis, 29 March 2001.
[265] Interview with Daniel Hornbach, 15 March 2001.
[266] Interview with Mark Davis, 29 March 2001.
[267] Janet Ebaugh, personal communication.
[268] KONHSA is indeed within the boundaries of the City of
Inver Grove Heights.
[269] Richard J. Christman, Quarterly Reports 1970-1984
[KONHSA archives].
[270] Interview with Shelley Shreffler, 27 March 2001.
[271] Ibid.
[272] Ibid.
[273] Ibid.
[274] This opinion is probably informed by Shelley’s current
work as a land use planner at the Neighborhood Energy Consortium.
[275] Interview with Shelley Shreffler, 27 March 2001.
[276] Ibid.
[277] Ibid.
[278] According to the interview with Shelley Shreffler, Shirley
was one of Hornbach’s post-doctoral students. According to the interview
with Elizabeth Svenson, Patrick was a Marine Biology instructor at Macalester.
[279] Interview with Elizabeth Svenson, 9 April 2001.
[280] Interview with Elizabeth Svenson, 9 April 2001; however,
Svenson was not aware of any serious consideration to sell KONHSA.
[281] Interview with Elizabeth Svenson, 9 April 2001.
[282] This project is either on indefinite hold or has been
dropped entirely.
[283] Interview with Elizabeth Svenson, 9 April 2001.
[284] The first woodland burn went very smoothly, so Svenson
decided to do a second. However, the company she had hired to supervise
the burn apparently misjudged the conditions, and she remembers the fire as
being “a little bit hot.” Luckily, they were able to control it, but it
burned more than they had planned.
[285] There were detailed burn maps kept by Shreffler and
Svenson, but they have since been lost.
[286] Interview with Elizabeth Svenson, 9 April 2001.
[287] Interview with Elizabeth Svenson, 9 April 2001.
[288] Laura Phillips, according to Svenson, was not an employee
of Macalester; she was living at KONHSA as its overseer but was being supported
by a Conservation Partners grant to restore the wetlands at Ordway.
[289] Interview with Elizabeth Svenson, 9 April 2001;
apparently, even after witnessing the difficulty experienced by Svenson,
Macalester did attempt one round of hiring under the old job description.
[290] Interview with Mark Davis, 29 March 2001.
[291] Interview with Elizabeth Svenson, 9 April 2001.
[292] Macalester College Course Catalog 1996-1997
[Macalester College archives].
[293] Macalester College Course Catalogs 1999-2000 and
2000-2001 [Macalester College archives].
[294] Ibid.
[295] Interview with Aldemaro Romero, 6 April 2001.
[296] Ibid.
[297] Ibid.
[298] Interview with Elizabeth Svenson, 9 April 2001.
[299] Interview with Janet Ebaugh, 1 May 2001.
[300] This means that 1024 times, a student visited
KONHSA, not that 1024 students visited KONHSA. Therefore, as long as the
visits were on different days, the same person could be counted multiple times.
[301] Interview with Aldemaro Romero, 6 April 2001.
[302] Interview with Aldemaro Romero, 6 April 2001.
[303] Interview with Janet Ebaugh, 1 May 2001. There is
also a need to make the dormitory compliant with fire escape codes. Janet
also stressed the fact that while for most purposes, a building built in 1969
is “grandfathered” into compliance with codes created since then, this is not
the case for institutional buildings and she has encountered clauses in most
grants which stipulate this.
[304] Ibid.
[305] The originally surveyed boundaries are not even right,
according to several sources, and Macalester might own as much as 300
acres. The area is being surveyed again to help solidify the boundaries,
as this will only become a more and more pressing issue as Dakota County
continues to grow.
[306] Interview with Aldemaro Romero, 6 April 2001.
[307] Interview with Janet Ebaugh, 1 May 2001.
[308] Interview with Aldemaro Romero, 6 April 2001.
[309] Ibid.
[310] Ibid.
[311] “A Vision for Ordway,” August 1998 [document #41 in
KONHSA archives]. See Appendix M.
[312] Interview with Aldemaro Romero, 6 April 2001.
[313] Ibid.
[314] Ibid.
[315] Ibid.
[316] Interview with Mark Davis, 29 March 2001.
[317] Interview with Aldemaro Romero, 6 April 2001.
[318] Interview with Daniel Hornbach, 15 March 2001.
[319] Ibid.
[320] Interview with Mark Davis, 29 March 2001.
[321] Interview with Elizabeth Svenson, 9 April 2001.
[322] Interview with Mark Davis, 29 March 2001.
[323] Ibid.
[324] Interview with Elizabeth Svenson, 9 April 2001.
[325] “Very useful” and “untapped potential” are obviously
somewhat vague and non-quantitative. I suppose, then, these are meant to
imply that the amount of research in the future can grow by any amount; the
“research potential” at Ordway will be largely determined by the other factors,
since research is traditionally a peripheral aim of Ordway.
[326] Interview with Aldemaro Romero, 6 April 2001.
[327] Janet Ebaugh, personal communication.
[328] E-mail from Janet Ebaugh, 13 April 2001.
[329] Interview with Aldemaro Romero, 6 April 2001.
[330] Ibid.
[331] Interview with Mark Davis, 29 March 2001.
[332] Interview with Elizabeth Svenson, 9 April 2001.
[333] Interview with Mark Davis, 29 March 2001.
[334] I am borrowing the use of this phrase to describe Ordway’s
acquisition from a suggestion made by one of my examiners, David Southwick.
[335] Apologies for the colorful metaphor. However, just
as certain species are indicator species because they survive under normal
conditions but are suddenly threatened with extinction when there is a disturbance
in the ecosystem, Ordway was certainly the appendage of Macalester that
suffered disproportionately during the 1970’s. 
|
