<!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>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT size=3>Marc:</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3></FONT> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT size=3>I have worked on this
issue for decades (more than three). It is a lot simpler than it might appear,
but there are crucial considerations. A lot of effort has been put into studies
about marginal differences between species, sub-populations (and even
bio-engineered species, f' gawd's sake!), but much of it is much ado about very
little, when the effort could be allocated to higher-priority work.
Statistically, there's usually so much background noise that the differences, if
you will excuse the expression, "wash." N and P sequestration "happens," and
this is not a variable you can do much to change--in itself. But you certainly
<EM><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">can</SPAN></EM> design a project to
balance, to the maximum extent <EM><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">feasible</SPAN></EM> by using various tricks. One of
the big problems is "seasonality," for example, the variations in uptake of N
and P. I think annual averages are often a “cop-out.” That is, it’s an easy way
to show/cover up “acceptable” reductions as “the best that can be done” when, in
fact, much more could be done. Hint: the bottom line is how much difference the
TOTAL output into the receiving body is reduced. What also counts is peaks of
variation in performance that can have significant effects at significant times
(e.g. at crucial points in reproductive cycles). </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3></FONT> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT size=3>Theoretically
speaking, water and nutrients, all things being equal (such as the
presence of available water in the root zone) control biomass, up to the
potential for each site. All this should be determined for each site and
set of conditions (where there are significant differences), and the design is
pretty much dictated by the load (and its variations) against the "treatment"
capacity. Overloading, at least seasonally, is the primary reason why such
systems fail to meet expectations. Big loads=big areas, but there are ways to
engineer higher <EM><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">effective</SPAN></EM>
capacities for smaller areas. </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3></FONT> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT size=3>A bigger "problem" (the
problem is not in the set of conditions, but in the response to them) is that
natural areas do not always have optimal conditions for maximizing treatment
effectiveness. This can mean that in some places, for example, site geology is
favorable (e.g. strata are bedded toward the waterway at the right depth) but in
other places it is unfavorable (e.g., percolation into a water-table). In the
latter cases, engineered systems may be required to avoid wasting resources on
good intentions and "intuitive certainties." A project that isn't based on good
evidence on all of the relevant and substantial considerations required to
demonstrate feasibility should not be funded. <EM><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Evidence </SPAN></EM>AND <EM><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">performance </SPAN></EM>that are quantified within a
reasonable range of maximums to minimums, are ESSENTIAL. Beware of consultants
bearing fancy proposals! Be on the lookout for <EM><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">substance</SPAN></EM>, particularly in input/output
standards and require a large performance bond (based on highly specific
limitations on blaming God and Nature, etc. for failure to function as
promised--of course where true imponderables are accepted by both parties, some
flexibility <EM><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">might</SPAN></EM> be tolerable,
but ONLY for DEMONSTRATION project. Demonstration projects, on smaller, but
reasonably representative scales, should be considered ESSENTIAL. No
theoretically-based project should ever be done without REAL EVIDENCE.
Generalities are cheap, and not worth whatever you pay for them. At some point,
failure to perform should probably rise to the level of fraud, but it's
sometimes difficult to distinguish from incompetence, however well-intentioned
or slickly packaged and spun. </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3></FONT> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT size=3>Someday, taxpayers and
other funders are going to get wise to these issues, and errors and emissions
insurance rates, not to mention lawsuits, are likely to descend upon the heads
of those who fail to deliver. </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3></FONT> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT size=3>As to "native" vs alien
species, many alien species can, in lab "experiments" especially, show higher
levels of nutrient removal (presuming this is what you mean by your statement)
than "natives." High nutrient availability can increase alien vegetation, but
this can be mitigated to some extent by ensuring the development of a diverse
ecosystem, even on engineered (with competent ecologists, not the engineers,
calling the shots) projects. (I developed an "ecologically engineered" system
many years ago, but the slick-talking big "firms" could always out-BS me.) Some
natives can also shift to higher nutrient-uptake forms (hybridization), and
sometimes such can be found "spontaneously" occurring on comparable
disturbed sites. Certainly the data you seek might serve to provide some
ball-park figures to indicate differences in species "performance" under lab
conditions, but that is rarely equivalent to the long-term, passive,
self-maintaining sequestration system required. The problem is that such data
can be misleading, perhaps more so, than useful. Context, including time and
change projections, is "everything." </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3></FONT> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT size=3>I should add that,
while N and P are serious pollutants, projects should also be designed for the
removal or transformation of other pollutants as well, and sometimes that
requires a higher level of pre-treatment or consideration/incorporation of, for
example, microbial species and adsorption. </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3></FONT> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT size=3>But the bottom remains:
For a given <EM><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">input</SPAN></EM> level of
contamination, there is a given <EM><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial">output</SPAN></EM> level of "contamination," and
the latter always should be demonstrated to be feasible over the life of the
project, as defined and approved by the parties. No amount of "authoritative"
statistical references can predict actual performance to any meaningful degree.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/><o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><FONT
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT size=3>Sorry this went on so
long; I actually left a lot out. <o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p><FONT
size=3> </FONT></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT size=3>Best
regards,<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><FONT
size=3>WT</FONT></SPAN></P></FONT><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>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: <</FONT><A
href="mailto:ialm@erols.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>ialm@erols.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: <</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: Monday, January 04, 2010 5:38 AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: [APWG] Nutrient and stormwater
release</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Regarding: <BR><BR>"Native plants provide food and shelter for birds,
butterflies and other<BR>desirable wildlife. Many help to enrich the soil. Their
root systems help<BR>rainfall percolate into the soil, reducing erosion and
runoff. This<BR>improves water quality." on the Wild Ones web site and similar
statements<BR>on other web sites, I am looking for actual statistical studies
that give<BR>percent increase in nutrients such as Nitrogen and Phosphorus,
sediment, or<BR>storm water run-off in mono-cultural patches or plots of
non-native<BR>invasive plants in natural areas compared to native plant plots in
a<BR>bio-diverse ecosystem. This will help folks get funding under the new
<BR>grants to protect the Chesapeake Bay and other watersheds. We have
such<BR>information for Microstegium but need it for other species. Best
regards.<BR><BR>Marc Imlay<BR>anacostia Watershed
Society<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>mail2web
LIVE - Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology -<BR></FONT><A
href="http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE</FONT></A><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>_______________________________________________<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><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><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>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:
8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.124/2599 - Release Date: 01/04/10
08:24:00<BR></FONT></BODY></HTML>