<!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>Krohn gets to the heart of the matter.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"Weed" is a <EM>cultural </EM>term; "colonizing
species" is an ecological term, normally used in the context of what some
ecologists call "secondary succession." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It is the business of all forms of life to
colonize, to "go forth and multiply" wherever they can. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In the cultural sense, any plant that invades our
invasion (wheat fields) is considered a "weed," or "brush." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In an ecological sense, annual (and some perennial)
weeds function like T-cells, making scabs on the wounds of the earth's
soil-skin. All restoration ecologists can do is to 1) let the scab do its work
unaided; 2) remove damaged tissue and control infection; 3) add ointments and
elixirs, many of which retard healing more than they help; 4) put a Band-Aid (R)
on; 5) add different sorts of "T-cells;" 6) patch in some tiny skin grafts
or hair plugs; 7) perform plastic surgery; 8) make the cadaver look pretty with
make-up. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Please forgive my using analogy rather than the
most convoluted "scientific" jargon possible. First, I don't know it, second I
don't want to know it, and third, I want to say it in a way that most people can
"get." However, I will try to respond in greater detail to anyone that doesn't,
including scientists. I'm always willing to learn from others and to have my
mistakes pointed out, and I am eager to hear from scientists and others on the
specific nature of my errors. I prefer to deal with specifics, hence the
examples from the Far West. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In my mind, at least, this discussion is not, and
should not be confined in any way, much less to the Great Basin and CA. That's
because it should be about <EM>principles</EM>, not methods or techniques.
Principles can be applied anywhere they are relevant; methods and techniques are
linear expediencies that nearly always fit the situation badly, sometimes
fatally. Some methods and techniques used in CA might work in NE or vice-versa,
but automatic or slavish adherence to them, even in the location of origin, is
courting trouble. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>When it comes to any standard, requirement, rule,
or "BMP," I think it's a fair question to question it and the reasoning behind
it. Also, is it relevant to reality? What evidence supports the conclusion? What
does it actually MEAN--is it arbitrary, imaginary, or based on a disciplined
examination of the relevant elements of the entirety of the context?
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bureaucracies have a tendency to make excuses for
clinging to rules in the absence of clear evidence that there are no better
rules possible. I do think performance standards, including holding bonds for a
reasonable period of time or hitting a reasonable target, are essential, but the
standards should be set for each project, and sometimes need to be different for
different parts of projects (for example, things like slope angle, aspect, soil
type, AWC, and a lot of variables out of the contractor's control can affect
performance). Performance standards have to be in sync with what is feasible,
particularly when the options are constrained by budget, agency intransigence,
etc. The contractor should be able to provide an estimated range of what is
feasilble, but low bidders must be constrained from whining their way out and
getting the money that should have gone to another bidder. Although optimal
allocation of scarce resources is a necessary goal of all public agencies, we
all know that there needs to be some latitude on either side of perfection.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>100 percent native "purity" may be a noble goal,
and it may be necessary in some contexts, but I don't know that the evidence
supports that it is the only way in all cases. I can understand the need to hold
a performance bond until xx% of the "pre-construction/native, perennial
vegetation is restored," but I would rather see a requirement, based upon both
sound theory and comparable empirical evidence (although empirical evidence that
is not explained by sound theory might be, and often is, misleading, though
it can lead to refinement of theory). Empirical evidence, when repeated and
repeated can lead to useful generalizations about whether this or that practice
gets results or fails to get results, but it is nearly always more difficult and
expensive than when data and theory are reconciled. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"Local" is a difficult term. With some species,
like tight endemics, "local ecotypes" are essential. With others there may be a
range in terms of altitude, latitude, soil features, pH, and many other factors
that can change the area that can be considered "local." One can run into the
same kind of trouble with ecotypes, sometimes even worse trouble, but this
generalization is likely to be reliable enough, at least on a trial basis. The
proof of the pudding . . .</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I understand the situation with bromes, but there
may be LOTS of other approaches that do not exceed budgetary limits that get the
job done, over a longer period of time. It may take some shifting of paradigms
as well. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Standard engineering practices/specs can cause
a lot of trouble when they don't have to. It doesn't take much to change an
impossible situation into a "golden" solution; it just has to be "sold" to the
engineers in the right way. As in buildings, foundations must fit the building
requirements--no engineer would use the same foundation on every building. No
restoration ecologist can work responsibility without employing every possible
(and practical) opportunity to support the intended ecosystem. Organisms are a
reflection of site conditions, and that's a large part of why construction
projects will only support weeds for many years. It's a pity that priceless
ecotype seeds have to be wasted where they haven't a prayer of making a stand
against a degraded site. </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></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: "Krohn, Alison" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:Alison.Krohn@nebraska.gov"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Alison.Krohn@nebraska.gov</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: "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><A
href="mailto:apwg@lists.plantconservation.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>apwg@lists.plantconservation.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial
size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:54 AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: Re: [APWG] Why not succeed the first time,
with Performance Standards?</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> How does this group define a weed? Are naturalized plants like
lambs quarters viewed the same as native ragweed? I'm very confused by the
insistence on 100% native purity. I don't think it's possible in the Midwest. I
work for a state transportation agency and we seed 98% native species, not local
ecotype. But when our seeding adjoins a brome pasture, brome will invade
and we cannot spend public resources to prevent that. Is this discussion
confined to the great basin and California?<BR>> <BR>> Is everyone aware
of the clean water act and the requirements of the NPDES construction
permit? Anywhere more than 1 acre is disturbed (unless you're a farmer) a
construction stormwater permit is required and remains open until 70% of the
pre-construction/native, perennial vegetation is restored. Most of the
roadsides we are regrading and seeding were brome. Native prairie
vegetation, especially mixed grass areas will provide less vegetative cover than
the brome and therefore will potentially discharge more sediment into our
waterways (if you believe the RUSLE2 model). I'm not advocating brome,
just want to point out the mixed messages out there and conflicting
expectations. We must stabilize erodible soils within 14 days under the
clean water act to protect our waterways. This state uses a mix of cool
and warm season grasses to meet this requirement along with some forbs. It is
not a restoration mix. <BR>> <BR>> I also grow local ecotype seed and
obviously support its use but there is not enough of this seed in our area
to restore roadsides and there doesn't appear to be the public support for this
endeavor in terms of dollars from FHWA, the state government or wealthy donors.
I applaud all of the research that Craig and others are doing but am frustrated
by the assumption that roadsides are restorations. We just don't have the
resources to pull it off.<BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>>
From: </FONT><A href="mailto:apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org</FONT></A><FONT
face=Arial size=2> [mailto:apwg-bounces@lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf
Of Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company<BR>> Sent: Tuesday, August 25,
2009 10:07 AM<BR>> To: </FONT><A
href="mailto:apwg@lists.plantconservation.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>apwg@lists.plantconservation.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> Subject: [APWG] Why not succeed the first time, with Performance
Standards?<BR>> <BR>> Dear Wayne and All,<BR>> <BR>> Thanks for your
email.<BR>> <BR>> Did everyone enjoy the Europe to Africa vegetation
Megatransect at<BR>> </FONT><A
href="http://www.ecoseeds.com/europe_africa_megatransect.html"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://www.ecoseeds.com/europe_africa_megatransect.html</FONT></A><FONT
face=Arial size=2> ?<BR>> I extended the web page yesterday, to cover from
the northern tip of<BR>> Norway (70N) to the southern tip of Africa
(34S). How about those rocks<BR>> in Mali at 18N?<BR>> <BR>> What
I am suggesting, is that we start looking for weed management or<BR>>
Ecological Restoration methods, with Performance Standards, for our<BR>>
projects, espcially the government-funded ones, like habitat
restoration,<BR>> or highway roadsides, etc.<BR>> <BR>> Up to now, when
someone purchased local native seeds, or purchased native<BR>> plants from a
nursery, there was a hope that the seed company or the<BR>> nursery would be
able to tell you, how to plant those seeds or plants, so<BR>> they would
succeed and thrive in a wildlands situation.<BR>> <BR>> Being the owner of
a seed company and nursery myself, it is all that a<BR>> seed company or
nursery can do for the price, to deliver good germinating,<BR>> weed-free
native seeds, or nurseries to deliver healthy native plants---to<BR>> expect
them to give you any advice on how to plant them in a wildlands<BR>>
situation, is way, way beyond the scope of their work.<BR>> <BR>>
Successful technologies on planting those natives back into wildlands,
and<BR>> getting them to survive, is a separate, very expensive puzzle to
solve,<BR>> and is going to require a separate, very significant
investment.<BR>> <BR>> That is why I set forth a set of costs per 1/10th
acre, on how much it may<BR>> cost to invent the technologies necessary,
at<BR>> </FONT><A href="http://www.ecoseeds.com/standards.html"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>http://www.ecoseeds.com/standards.html</FONT></A><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>> <BR>> A similar situation happened in the computer
industry before 1967. <BR>> Computers were built and sold, and the software
and operating systems were<BR>> free. But when the programs and
operating systems were free, there was<BR>> no economic incentive to
write better ones, so they were very slow and<BR>> clunky--it might take 12
hours to process one job, for example.<BR>> <BR>> Then, in 1967, Kenneth
Kolence started the first business to write and<BR>> license software, and
his first product was one that is still used today,<BR>> the disk
defragmentation program, which rearranged the programs on the<BR>> disk so
all the parts of each program were right next to each other,<BR>> greatly
speeding up the computer operations.<BR>> <BR>> It seems much more
efficient, to start out buying or licensing a<BR>> pre-tested weed management
or ecological restoration program, that has<BR>> some solid Performance
Standards supporting it?<BR>> <BR>> Otherwise, the scary, horror-show of
the I-505 planting in the Sacramento<BR>> valley, we see it is possible to
invest $450,000 on a couple of acres, <BR>> and by using the unlicensed,
public domain, off-the-shelf free restoration<BR>> technologies, still not
get it right after six years and five planting<BR>> attempts? Why not
succeed the first time?<BR>> <BR>> Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650)
325-7333<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> PCA's Alien Plant
Working Group mailing list<BR>> </FONT><A
href="mailto:APWG@lists.plantconservation.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>APWG@lists.plantconservation.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> </FONT><A
href="http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org"><FONT
face=Arial
size=2>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>> <BR>> Disclaimer<BR>> Any requests, advice or
opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the opinion of the individual posting
the message.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> PCA's Alien Plant
Working Group mailing list<BR>> </FONT><A
href="mailto:APWG@lists.plantconservation.org"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>APWG@lists.plantconservation.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> </FONT><A
href="http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org"><FONT
face=Arial
size=2>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org</FONT></A><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>> <BR>> Disclaimer<BR>> Any requests, advice or
opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the opinion of the individual posting
the message.</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:
8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.66/2325 - Release Date: 08/25/09
06:08:00<BR></FONT></BODY></HTML>