<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear All:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If things work out as planned, I will have a look
at Craig's project sometime in September. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I, too, would be interested in comparing notes with
anyone who has even come close to achieving Craig's performance. While I agree
with him in spirit with respect to the high percentages he has achieved, my
standards are a bit different--not necessarily better or worse, in my view. My
projects were almost exclusively maintenance-free from square one. No
irrigation, no fertilizer, no plant "replacement," no maintenance.
Self-sufficiency is essential for ecosystem restoration to be complete. I do not
object to irrigation, adding plants, or limited "weed control," but my projects
had to meet Ewel's criteria, particularly resistance to invasion. (Ewel, J. J.
1987. Restoration is the ultimate test of ecological theory. Pages 31-33 in W.
R. Jordan, M. E. Gilpin, and J. D. Aber, editors. Restoration ecology: a
synthetic approach to ecological research. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.). St. John also referenced Ewel in his paper: (St. John, T. V.
1989. Practical application of Ewel's criteria for a successful restoration.
Pages 376-380 in H. Glenn Hughes and Thomas M. Bonnicksen, editors. Proceedings
of a Symposium: First Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration.
The Society for Ecological Restoration, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.) </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>With respect to weed management, I never did any; I
left that up to the healthy ecosystem (resistant to invasion). I must say, too,
that I do not object to active weed management when there is a clear trend
upward of weed populations. I found that crews, however well-intentioned, did
too much damage to the emerging ecosystem to be more useful than
damaging--emerging ecosystems are too delicate, even for foot-traffic,
which can stimulate weed emergence and growth. Plant additions were not
permitted for three to five years. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I applaud any client who will support any necessary
follow-up work, but I never asked for the extra money, thinking it
my responsibility to encourage ecosystem restoration as a common practice
and an economical alternative to maintained landscapes. The main goal
was ultimate effectiveness and a steady trend of improvement (diversity and
succession), not the speed of ecosystem development. I do, however, think that
very careful sampling of emerging plant and animal populations is ok, and that
early indications of success can be determined at that stage. I do not endorse
arbitrary time limits and "cover" criteria, as they are irrelevant to ecosystem
development. If, for example, "cover" is demanded within 90 days, seedling
density will be far too high, resulting in the more aggressive (even indigenous)
species suppressing the more slowly-developing ones. Getting the plant density
and species proportions right is one of the most demanding aspects of ecosystem
restoration practice. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>WT</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: "Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company"
<</FONT><A href="mailto:Craig@astreet.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Craig@astreet.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: <</FONT><A
href="mailto:landrest@cox.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>landrest@cox.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Cc: <</FONT><A
href="mailto:craig@astreet.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>craig@astreet.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 12:13 PM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: Ecosystem restoration, the goal for weed
management?</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Dear Wayne and All,<BR><BR>Thanks for your reply. If anyone would
like a hard copy of the June 2002<BR>ECOLOGICAL RESTRATION article mailed to
you, directly email me your name<BR>and address -- <</FONT><A
href="mailto:craig@astreet.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>mailto:craig@astreet.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>><BR><BR>I
am thinking about writing a 2009 update to the Shaw article, so anyone<BR>else
who has worked on 50 or more acres, and achieved close to 100%
weed<BR>management with 100% native understory restored in any
wildlands<BR>situation, I would be very interested in comparing
notes.<BR><BR>What I have been suggesting recently, is that at all the various
annual<BR>wildlands weed meeting around the United States, that the <Shaw
Award> be<BR>presented to any weeding or restoration project that gets close
to Shaw's<BR>achievement.<BR><BR>In places like lower-elevation California, when
you are managing wildlands<BR>weeds, you absolutely must get back to 100% native
understory.<BR><BR>I think we will decide in the future, that this must be the
goal elsewhere<BR>in North America, because wildland weeds are like a disease in
the native<BR>ecosystems, interfering with their function and ability to
thrive.<BR><BR>At a minimum the wildland weeds are pirates of space, nutrients
and time.<BR><BR>In California from sea level to 5,000 ft. elevation, if you are
just<BR>focused on weed management, once you pull one weed, there is
always<BR>another hundred weed species to immediately fill in that bare spot
that<BR>you made by pulling the first weed, at densities of 40 seedlings
per<BR>square inch in some grassland habitats.<BR><BR>Shaw's 74 acres is 5%
riparian, 30% native grasslands and 65% oak woodlands.<BR><BR>The FIRST GOAL,
needs to be converting the area from weed cover, back to<BR>at least 85% and
ideally 100% native cover, using some ecological<BR>restoration technologies
that have rapid Performance Standards.<BR><BR>Performance Standards mean, that
whatever technique you use, it gets you<BR>close to 99% weed eradication and 99%
native cover, within a short amount<BR>of time.<BR><BR>My personal Performance
Standard goal in 90 days or less, for central<BR>California native grassland
habitats.<BR><BR>The understory of the Shaw property in 1992 was only 1%
natives.<BR><BR>The 85% native cover was achieved by 2000, after only three
years of<BR>intensive management. And all of the native plants that
grew, appeared<BR>out of a soil seedbank that was dormant underneath and
suppressed by the<BR>exotics, and sprouted once the weeds were
managed.<BR><BR>And we are estimating that those dormant native seeds, are at
least 35<BR>years old and perhaps as much as 100 years old.<BR><BR>The SECOND
GOAL needs to be correcting any missing species, and making<BR>sure you have the
correct understory mix that should be within the native<BR>ecosystem, holding it
together.<BR><BR>For example, the native clover seeds have a short life span, so
dormant<BR>viable seeds did not survive, and Shaw was not able to resurrect
them<BR>before their seeds lost viability. So local populations of
native<BR>clovers that exist around the Shaw property need to be collected
and<BR>re-inoculated onto the Shaw property.<BR><BR>The THIRD goal, is to manage
the native understory, to promote diversity. <BR>There are certain native
species, that once released from the grip of the<BR>exotics, turn into bullies
in their own right, and left unmanaged, will<BR>grow as
monocultures.<BR><BR>Shaw was not satisfied with just producing a 100% weed-free
area with a<BR>100% native cover landscape, but took the next step of managing
that 100%<BR>native cover, for species diversity. Shaw says that managing
the natives<BR>for diversity is a much harder task, than just getting rid of
100% of the<BR>weeds.<BR><BR>The two new, undescribed species that appeared from
underneath the exotics<BR>on the Shaw property, one is from the Carrot
family--a Sanicula, and the<BR>other from the Sunflower family--a
Gnaphalium.<BR><BR>Another field trip--could be a possibility to the Shaw
property in<BR>September or October of this year?<BR><BR>Anyone interested,
contact me directly, and I will see what can be<BR>arranged, <</FONT><A
href="mailto:craig@astreet.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>mailto:craig@astreet.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>.
Please send me you name, address,<BR>phone, email, who you work for, and what
weekends would be a possibility<BR>for you to attend in September or
October?<BR><BR>Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333<BR><BR></FONT>
<P></P><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<HR>
</FONT>
<P></P><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>No virus found in this incoming
message.<BR>Checked by AVG - </FONT><A href="http://www.avg.com"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>www.avg.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2> <BR>Version:
8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.49/2294 - Release Date: 08/10/09
06:10:00<BR></FONT></BODY></HTML>