Oh, O'Malley, where do I begin? And where do I leave off? There are so MANY tales to tell . . .
In 1969, with the considerable assistance of a number of good people along the way (from professors to bulldozer operators), after something like fifteen years of blind alleys and failures, I began to get the idea of what ecosystem restoration really is--the restoration of a fully self-sufficient, self-regenerative, increasingly diverse assemblage of species selected for, and reflective of, the actual site conditions and ecosystem dynamics--I designed the first restoration project to meet those requirements. It lasted about ten years (after 1972) until it was completely destroyed by a bogus road-widening project and "restored" by a landscape architect using the latest in irrigation technology. The few plants that "came up" soon declined into an eroded, landsliding mess of a weedlot. The deed was done by a regular "Moriarty," highly-placed in the bureaucratic structure. I had ten years of photographs, however, and by 1992 had ten years of photographs of the "restoration" that replaced it. Unfortunately, I gave the slides to the ecologist I found through this listserv who took over my consulting business at the turn of the millennium and abandoned it a few years later, taking the photographs and almost everything else with him without as much as a word, so I can no longer "prove" it. One thing about real restoration projects--nobody can find them after about three to five years. Several other projects followed, some of which still exist, including at least one riparian restoration project in Southern California that, the last time I saw it a few years ago, had not yet been "maintained." Since it is an Army Corps of Engineers project, I presume it is being protected, at least on paper, from the local jurisdiction, but hey, the rule is "It's easier to say 'I'm sorry' than it is to ask permission." This cynicism is the prevalent formula for "promise 'er anything but giving 'er the ol' heh-heh." Sorry to hear this happened, but really, it's common. Semper vigilans. And sue. Insisting upon bond-like assurance that is binding upon future administrations, with severe penalties written into a management (or non-management) plan is ESSENTIAL (but never done--why?). Go to the press. Investigate the history in the City Clerk's or Recorder's office, or whatever agency processed the original project. Flood control engineers will scare the agency lawyers and the public into thinking that the "channel" has to be "cleared." In some cases, they can be telling the truth about the flood hazard, but not always. Sometimes it is just a "Chicken Little" fussbudget at work. There usually is a way to preserve both the habitat and public safety, but the expediency-minded people in power seldom give a damn. Sometimes they are just venal. Sometimes they just hate "environmentalists," and sometimes, unfortunately, for cause. Try soft power first. When it doesn't work, bring out the howitzers. WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dr. Rachel O'Malley" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 1:16 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Urban stream "restoration" as a front for ecological destruction? > 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.1/1960 - Release Date: 02/19/09 10:48:00
