Ecolog: Let us do consider the "programming goals of other(?) . . . professions."
Traditional engineering has long ignored ecosystems in the conversion of natural runoff (e.g. stream) courses, thus designing "drainage channels" that constrict rivers, streams and tributaries to make development unsuited to "flood plains" and relatively low "lowlands" possible, subjecting the lands thus developed to flooding, increasing the velocity and depth of the runoff in the channels, making them more, not less hazardous for people, other animals, and property that happen to find themselves/it in them at the wrong time. Matthew is quite right that urban residents do not (or should not) "feel comfortable" trekking through them. "Like it or not" is a reasonable rendition of many engineers' attitude toward anyone, ecologist or anyone else, that objects to converting streams into the open "storm sewers" they create "for practical purposes. These structures commonly drown people and suck away property that have no bushes or trees to cling to or get hung up on, especially when paved, but even those open to percolation have such low residence times that groundwater recharge is minimal. That such engineering imposes a "maintenance burden" of vegetation-clearing in perpetuity upon the communities they "serve" as well as increased hazard (volume, velocity, erosion, breadth, pollution, etc.) to innocents downstream is just part of a testimony to the inadequacy of such linear-minded design. Bossler's tone is not only bossy but fallacious when he insinuates that "Fire risk, flood control and conveyance, and public safety [are] commonly poo-pooed by ecologists . . . ." The truth is, ecologists are seldom if ever are consulted by so-called flood-control engineers (if developers and others built on land above flood plains in a competent manner, there would be no flood to control); when they are, it is most commonly to put a pseudo-environmental cosmetic face on channeling projects to sell them to a sufficiently gullible percent of the public and to appease well-meaning "environmentalists" who are unaware they are being swamped with green ink in lieu of the loss of rare habitat. "We" (does Bossler "we" Ecolog subscribers or "we" ecologists or does it refer to a whole crowd of straw-men and -women?) are always eager to communicate with other professions, sometimes so eager that we end up accepting a relatively meaningless ribbon or quasi-riparian "corridor" because that's all we think we can get from the political bullies with the money behind them. As is apparent by any honest analysis resembling the preceding sketch of factors, the effects of expedient engineering are far from limited to "the environment" or "ecologists," they concern everyone in and downstream from any linear-designed structure/community to an extent unimagined by almost everyone. The definition of professional responsibility is to represent that unimagined fraction of knowledge honestly and completely. There is another definition of "professional" that should be drummed out of town, as it were, but they almost always insinuate themselves with the power, and let the principle go hang for a few bucks. Bossler's vague generalizations about "the design of such an area" would be best served by a specific case, or even a hypothetical one with real numbers on it. I agree with Bossler that some ecologists, like some engineers, demonize others, and that is always a bad thing. But both professions need to clean up their act and their rhetoric and face the total reality behind their presumptions. Honesty is not demonization, despite the wailing of crocodile tears by those caught with their hands in the cookie-jar. Neither should accept any demagoguery lying down, and all concerned should learn straight talk and give up manipulation (perhaps when pigs fly?). But it does happen, and there are good engineers and good ecologists out there that are trying to find a point of reconciliation. That, not dominance of one over the other, could be the operative modality for us all. It's each person's choice. Let's try to find some real cases where it HAS worked. WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Bossler" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 10:17 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] FW: [ECOLOG-L] Urban Stream "Restoration" Urban streamcourses in the southwestern U.S. have mostly been designed for flood control and conveyance, and most often not of sufficient width or structure to provide much benefit to wildlife or human recreation in the form of walking trails, bid-watching, etc. Like it or not, urban residents, likely due to their infrequent encounters with "wild" or "scrubby" vegetated landscapes, do not feel comfortable trekking through or next to them (something that most ecologists writing on ECOLOG love!) A second point to be made here is that highly altered linear ecosystems, such as flow-controlled watercourses though urban areas, are often maintenance nightmares due to the nichespace that has been created for better-adapted exotic species. Fire risk, flood control and conveyance, and public safety, while commonly poo-pooed by ecologists, are real objectives for professions whom we often do not understand or communicate with. It seems to me that, in order to increase urban people's understanding of the habitat and ecosystem value (or, for that matter, recreational value,) there seems to be a need for intermediate experiences with semi-managed natural areas. The design of such an area can take the form of a moderately-graded, smooth-surfaced pathway bordered by built elements of comfort (edging, seating, etc.) with maintained views towards more ecologically-functioning areas. The design and maintenance of such areas, of course, is more expensive than the moneys supporting small-scale LTER projects or knee-jerk maintenance actions. I would encourage restoration ecologists within this forum and elsewhere to consider the programming goals of urban watercourses as identified by other professions before demonizing the decisions made by maintenance staff. Perhaps the fault lies in our own profession's lack of communication and team-building skills? Matthew Bossler University of Arizona, Masters Student C: (804) 763-9035 1721 E. Lester St. Tucson, AZ 85719 > Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:27:16 -0500 > From: [email protected] > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Urban Stream "Restoration" > To: [email protected] > > Unfortunately, this happens everywhere. I agree one of the biggest problems > is probably our society's perception of what looks "scrubby." I drive by > streams constantly that have been "cleaned out" or "improved." There is > usually green, lush grass right up to the edge of the stream bank, which is > eroded and slumping into the water. > > Some states provide legal protection for riparian corridors. So, you may > look into what permits are required in your state for such activities. Other > than that, we can only re-shape our ideas about what "looks nice". > > > T. Travis Brown > 193 Forest Drive > Jeffersonville, IN 47130 > [email protected] > (502) 322-4034 > > >Hello all, > >I have observed a disturbing trend in my home in Santa Cruz, > >California that I see echoed in this recent article from Berkeley, > >CA > > > http://berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-02-19/article/32287?headline=Green-Neighbors-The-Richmond-Chainsaw-Massacre-Part-One > > > > >In these cases, urban riparian corridors are denuded in the name of > >public safety, despite the existence of a restoration plan of some > >sort. In the Santa Cruz case, the work is done by furloughed > >prisoners engaged by the city government, no qualified biologists > >are employed, and a vegetation removal permit entitled "riparian > >restoration" is issued , despite the heavy removal of willows, box > >elders and other natives. > >Is this new trend peculiar to the Central Coast of California, or > >are others seeing similar problems with urban stream "restorations"? > > > >Please share any stories you may have with me... > >Thanks, > > > >Rachel O'Malley > > > -- > Department of Biology > PO Box 1848 > University of Mississippi > University, Mississippi 38677-1848 > > Brewer web page - http://home.olemiss.edu/~jbrewer/ > > FAX - 662-915-5144 > Phone - 662-915-1077 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Online Loan > Click for online loan, fast & no lender fee, approval today > http://tagline.excite.com/fc/FgElN1gy1WvILc6iw879Kg1AT8HtJzIsf6mA2BsuZnG7cGSXkwR8ZSC9hRm/ _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ Hotmail®…more than just e-mail. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_howitworks_022009= -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1967 - Release Date: 02/23/09 07:17:00
