Ecological restrictions

Controversy surrounding the proper use of the 4,000-acre Big Chico Creek Ecological Reserve (BCCER) began at its inception a dozen years ago, when the property was acquired ago by Chico State’s Research Foundation.

The purpose of the reserve, which sits off Highway 32 about 10 miles east of Chico, is to provide ecological habitat for research and preservation—it supports more than 600 plant and 140 wildlife species. But because $1.69 million of the $3.8 million in federal and state funding came from the state Wildlife Conservation Board—an arm of what was then called the Department of Fish and Game, now known as the Department of Fish and Wildlife—hunting was allowed on the land 52 days a year.

Some saw that as a conflict in purposes: Was the reserve there for education, research and preservation, or was it there to provide hunters with game in the form of wild turkeys, deer and quail? Others wanted public trail access to the land against the wishes of those who believed it needed environmental protection.

The seemingly conflicting uses were ironed out over time, and harmony reigned on the reserve, with research by university students and field trips by elementary school students, as well as protection of the natural resources.

That was the case until last October, when a deck attached to a house that came with the property collapsed, injuring 11 people. That incident sparked the creation of a risk management team to assess the dangers presented by the reserve as well as the university’s legal liabilities. That three-person team is made up of Katy Thoma, director of the Research Foundation, Lori Hoffman, vice president of Business and Finance, and Karla Zimmerlee, chief counsel for Chico State President Paul Zingg.

A report on the matter is expected by the end of April, but in the meantime, 10 programs that have used the reserve have been canceled for the spring semester, according to a report put together by Dulcy Schroeder, a member of the Technical Advisory Committee that wrote the reserve’s original management plan.

Those programs include The Outdoor Classroom, which accommodates 1,000 fourth- and fifth-graders on field trips; a weekend hiking series for families; a fundraiser called Candles in the Classroom that brought in $35,000 last year to the BCCER for student ecological projects; and another that allows staff to apply for grants and donations that reportedly brought in $150,000 last year.

Schroeder, who lives in Forest Ranch close to the reserve, said she thinks the university is overreacting.

“Risk management is important for a university in this litigious time but there are no representatives on this [risk management] team who can speak to education or to the environment, the two missions with which the reserve and university have been entrusted,” she said in an email response to questions. “Every decision made so far has been driven by liability. Education and the environment haven’t made it to the table yet.”

Risk management team members Hoffman and Thoma both directed questions about the reserve and their investigation to Joe Wills, the school’s director of public affairs. He said the programs were on temporary hiatus while the risk management team looks at potential risks and liabilities.

“They are in the process of assessing the operations at the reserve,” Wills said in a recent phone interview. “That includes how to conduct operations, running the reserve, funding the reserve—all the various aspects of the operation. They are due to complete the assessment no later than the end of April.”

Wills said access to the reserve by students is limited to times when faculty or staff members are available to escort them. It is the same with the elementary school field trips.

“We had to contact some of those planning the field trips and tell them we couldn’t schedule them this spring, but that we’ll keep in contact with them,” Wills said. “We’ll have a plan going forward later this spring.”

For her part, Schroeder has her doubts about the university’s intentions.

“I think that the lack of transparency and lack of logic in decisions being made are a red flag,” she said. “It leaves one asking what the real reason is for these decisions seemingly to shut down the reserve.”

Scott Huber, who recently resigned as the head of outdoor education on the reserve, said he thinks the goal may be to dismantle the whole system.

“Is the effort here to find another owner or buyer for the property?” he asked in a recent interview. “It just seems like it’s gone beyond reasonable risk abatement.”

Wills said he had not heard of any specific talk of the university divesting itself of the property.

“I suppose when you are doing an assessment, you want to look at every aspect,” he said. “But I have not heard any discussion as to why we wouldn’t want to have the reserve, but then I’m not on the committee. So I don’t know what discussions they are having.”