I am pleased by the level of discussion my post generated...
I have personally worked with many of the professionals to whom several
commentors allude, and many are conscientious and responsible, including
the woman cited in the Berkeley article. Many of our central Pacific
coast pocket watersheds are the only sites in which birdwatchers find
rare migrants, as coastal streams are limited in number, and estuarine
habitats often have adjacent human development. We are sadly beyond the
era of pristine wilderness in Coastal California. I do not support
restoration as a mitigation for destruction of riparian habitat, but if
a "restoration" plan can codify a public desire for an urban riparian
area to be "left alone," that should be better than nothing.
I am really interested in understanding how often and why the process
fails, and whether some of the new environmental review exemptions
(particularly the exemption for "restoration") are being misused. What
interests me most at present is two scenarios:
1) When maintenance staff call instream flood control, fire control or
public safety/aesthetics projects "restoration," in order to avoid
environmental impact review, (i.e. "greenwashing"), without any accepted
definition of restoration being applied, and
2) even where there is a reasonable level of political support for
"restoration" of hydrological and ecological processes, instream
maintenance activities are carried out in opposition to restoration
goals or ecological processes.
In my Santa Cruz example, the city adopted a reasonable "restoration"
plan following a multi-year public political process involving all the
professions described above. The plan calls for removing exogenous fill
and retaining native vegetation, and instream work must be done under
the supervision of a biological monitor. Removal of mature native
vegetation to provide police access was not provided for in the plan,
yet that is the only work that has been done in the watershed in the
five years since the detailed "plan" was adopted. No engineers,
biologists, landscape architects, or ecologists were involved in the
work that was done, just one undertrained city "arborist" (no higher
education is required for this career, just an exam in tree care) and a
crew of furloughed prisoners.
This is part of the tension. The desire to do "something" rather than
follow the plan and employ educated professionals of any description. I
am really just curious how often this happens, or if it is a result of
local conditions. My sense is that at least a few of the Ecolog readers
have seen something similar... and several are pleased to have the
opportunity to express the frustration of it.
Thanks for your stories..
Rachel O'Malley
Wayne Tyson wrote:
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
