Ecolog: O'Malley's case is common, both in terms of "good intentions" and in their impotence in the face of reality. There need be no malicious intent--yea, self-righteousness is much more common.
She also hits the nail on the head when she calls for a definition of "restoration." But even then, please realize that paper and premises and promises do not get the job done--EVER. Only "semper vigilans" works--based, of course, a management document with real teeth. Urbanization, red in tooth and claw . . . The definition of "restoration" must be strict but simple; how's this: Restoration is the establishment of a fully self-sufficient (no irrigation, no fertilizer, no plant or animal maintenance), self-regenerative equilibrium state of a complex of indigenous, co-evolved organisms and site characteristics beginning with a continuing trend toward increased species diversity and complex dynamic structural organization that will persist indefinitely. Trends toward degradation of this standard, other than temporary responses to perturbations followed by immediate restoration of a trend toward improvement without intervention signify a species assemblage which is merely representational and not ecologically functional--not a restored or "restoring" ecosystem. Translation: In true restoration, you put the organisms back that were there before any disturbance, including pre-project indigenous species and those determined (e.g. by herbarium and animal collections) to have been present historically and which are adapted to current conditions (as modified to restore the disturbed physical [e.g., soils and geology, including hydrology] and chemical [e.g. removal of contamination] characteristics to pre-disturbance conditions. If the site continues to improve (e.g., steady decline in weediness and increases in the number of kinds of plants and animals to a point where they fluctuate in populations and distribution according to natural cycles and variations but always recover without any kind of persistent decline or increase in weediness beyond a clearly subordinate population of alien species), the restoration can be considered dynamically stable and real, particularly if added intervention cannot establish a further trend toward ecological improvement. If the site degenerates to an alien-dominated plant assemblage, or if the indigenous species cannot self-regulate, self-reproduce, and be self sufficient without intervention, there is no effective restoration, and such projects cannot be termed "ecosystem restoration." It is questionable whether they can be called "revegetation" or any other deceptive term, although revegetation might be defined as any kind of "groundcover," whether or not it consists of a clear predominance of organisms "native" to the political boundaries of California or any other arbitrary definition--but then why have a "definition" if it is vague and misleading? This is not to say that the restored ecosystem cannot be manipulated for aesthetic or other practical purposes; however, such objectives do not alter the standard, they alter the project. This also is not to say that projects cannot include non-ecosystem aspects like landscaping that do not satisfy the standard; it is to say, however, that such projects or parts of projects cannot be termed "restoration." One must, simply, be HONEST. Or, one might say, "Keep it REAL." If it is landscaping, call it landscaping, if it is both, call it both. [NOTE: Since riparian ecosystems are by their nature disturbed environments, and since it is likely that many "weeds" evolved in them (at least to the point where they further evolved in agricultural (particularly irrigated, and by definition, highly disturbed) environments, most riparian restoration projects are likely to continue to contain alien species that are highly adapted to riparian areas. The removal of alien species, the populations of which increase beyond a relatively insignificant level, is a management option. In such cases, complete removal and continued removal of any recruits is most likely the only option. Management plans should be clear in this respect, and performance bonds should be required of the entities responsible. In other cases, where, for example, the indigenous species remain dominant and suppress alien populations to a minor component of the biotic assemblage, further "control" may be unproductive. I look forward to productive open dialogue and modification of this text, perhaps toward a statement acceptable to ESA. WT "Nine-tenths of the hell being raised in the world is well-intentioned." --Anon. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dr. Rachel O'Malley" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:33 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION Riparian Urban Engineering Re: [ECOLOG-L] FW: [ECOLOG-L] Urban Stream "Restoration" 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 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1971 - Release Date: 02/25/09 06:40:00
