From Alison.Krohn at nebraska.gov Wed Feb 1 07:51:55 2012 From: Alison.Krohn at nebraska.gov (Krohn, Alison) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 07:51:55 -0600 Subject: [RWG] 2,4-d resistant corn In-Reply-To: <002c01cce034$16d3c400$447b4c00$@edu> References: <00950E7949E6234CB5812A2E3EA21B234372F8B192@STNEMAIL02.stone.ne.gov> <002c01cce034$16d3c400$447b4c00$@edu> Message-ID: <00950E7949E6234CB5812A2E3EA21B234372F8B65D@STNEMAIL02.stone.ne.gov> If you wish to comment on Dow's petition here is a link: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2010-0103-0001 Comments will be accepted till February 27th. Appreciate all the comments! From: Holly Sletteland [mailto:hslettel at calpoly.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:19 AM To: Krohn, Alison; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: RE: [RWG] 2,4-d resistant corn I for one don't think you are overreacting and do think this is a subject that is appropriate for the restoration community to address. The development of herbicide resistant crops has NOT led to a decrease in the application of these chemicals as the herbicide companies promised, but rather a substantial increase. This is resulting in more herbicide resistant weeds (let alone other issues such as ground water pollution) reducing the effectiveness of a tool in our toolbox. It's also leading to agricultural fields that are too clean. The dramatic drop in monarch populations is increasingly believed to be stemming from the loss of milkweed. Part of it is development to be sure, but a large part of it is the loss of milkweed in agricultural fields where it used to be relatively common. What other native "weeds" are we losing that are critical to the food chain? And of course, drift is always an issue with large-scale herbicide applications. It's not supposed to happen, but we all know that it does periodically with irresponsible applicators. If you provide contact info, I'll be happy to send an email. _______________________________________________ Holly Sletteland Preserve Manager Morro Coast Audubon Society PO Box 1507 Morro Bay, CA 93443 805.772.1991 / 805.239.3928 _______________________________________________ From: rwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org [mailto:rwg-bounces at lists.plantconservation.org] On Behalf Of Krohn, Alison Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 6:37 AM To: rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Subject: [RWG] 2,4-d resistant corn Has anyone on the list kept up with or followed the expansion of herbicide resistant crops? Monsanto is petitioning USDA to approve 2,4-D resistant corn (isn't corn already resistant?). I'm very concerned about the widespread reintroduction of 2,4-d in response to Roundup resistant "superweeds" and to kill alfalfa (especially roundup ready alfalfa) for rotation into another crop. I know the organic farming community has been fighting this but what about restoration folks? We grow native forbs and grasses in Nebraska for seed and experienced 2,4-d drift last spring when an adjacent alfalfa field was sprayed with 2,4-d and glyphosate to rotate into corn. I can't isolate the herbicide damage from the August dry weather but we did experience a 70% decline in perennial sunflower seed production. We filed a complaint with our state regulators and after finding the "lost" report they warned the operator not to do it again. The tissue samples showed evidence of both herbicides on our field. We use herbicides to manage some troublesome species but we spot spray. It seems to me the potential impact on roadside refuges of native plant communities may be severe if herbicides like 2,4-d and dicamba are used more frequently. Have any other agencies or advocates weighed in on the proliferation of herbicide resistant crops and the potential impacts on adjacent native plant communities? Am I overreacting? Thanks for your time -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Craig at astreet.com Mon Feb 6 10:01:52 2012 From: Craig at astreet.com (Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 16:01:52 -0000 (UTC) Subject: [RWG] 99.5%-or-Bust Standard for March 20 San Mateo County WMA meeting Message-ID: <1919.66.81.41.10.1328544112.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Dear All, At our March 20 San Mateo County Weed Management Area meeting here in northern California, I will be discussing the performance standard for the native grasslands within our County, the topic will be "99.5% or Bust". That is what we have to do here in northern California, get the grassland ecosystem back to 99.5% native cover, or it quickly or eventually collapses back to a huge weed-patch, like the I-505 project at http://www.ecoseeds.com/road.test.html At least every five year, we need to bring all of our measurments together regarding weed management and ecological restoration, to see what performance standards we have actually achieved. In that way, we can see how much further we must go, in order to get to the 99.5% native cover standard. Also, if all of the local land management agencies pool their achieved performance standards for non-riparian grassland habitats, then if one agency has spent serious money, like 1/2 million dollars from Caltrans, or 1/3 million from our local Open Space District at http://www.ecoseeds.com/invent.html, or the 25 years and $3 million for our local HCP on San Bruno Mtn., then other can get educated on what those studies or plantings produced? Each agency that manages land within a County, including the local road department and the State highway department, share the same weed issues, and those weed issues are also linked to every agency that has ecological restoration issues. Therefore, it seems like there should be discussions started in every County in the USA on how consistent and rapid performance standards for both weed management and ecological restoration could be achieved, like in the next 8 years. Perhaps we could sneak up on a performance standard, year-by-year? If we take the I-505 performance standard that currently exists for Sacramento Valley grasslands at 28% native cover, then if our goal is 99.5% within the 8 years, that means by the end of this year, get about 40% cover, then at the end of 2013, 46% cover, etc., until 8 years later, you achieve 99.5% cover? Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333 From landrest at cox.net Mon Feb 6 15:19:19 2012 From: landrest at cox.net (Wayne Tyson) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:19:19 -0800 Subject: [RWG] Ecosystem restoration standards Dremann Ecosystem trends and collapse Re: [APWG] 99.5%-or-Bust Standard for March 20 San Mateo County WMAmeeting References: <1919.66.81.41.10.1328544112.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Message-ID: <023301cce514$fd6a71e0$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> All: ". . . get the grassland ecosystem back to 99.5% native cover, or it quickly or eventually collapses back to a huge weed-patch . . ." --Craig Dremann As the song goes, "it ain't necessarily so." There are simply too many variables involved to support such a generalization. It is a nice one, an appealing one, and one that is likely to win the hearts and minds of those who share our sentiments but lack the experience and knowledge of the relevant principles. But hell, I'm far from certain that I understand ecosystem function well enough, and I don't know of anyone (except God or Nature perhaps) who does. Even Dremann, with his vast knowledge, may not know everything. It just sometimes appears as though he thinks so. That is not to say it can't happen, and for years I thought all was lost if even a single alien seed was left on a restoration project. I shared the fears of the most dedicated "weed-Nazi" that once aliens invaded, all would be lost, and the body-snatchers would prevail. Then, after fifteen years of being kicked in the po-po by Nature at work, I began to shift my paradigm--and lo! projects began to improve with time rather than degrade or "collapse." And this is not to say that restoration projects won't or don't collapse--they have and they do. But that is not solely because 99.5 percent of the aliens or alien "cover" (whatever that means) was not achieved (at HUGE EXPENSE!). After fifteen years of applying irrelevant (to ecosystem function) agronomic and horticultural paradigms, I finally spent enough time studying what was going on in Nature, I started having more success. That is, the less I interfered with natural processes (especially after "treatment") the better results I got (self-sufficiency, stress-tolerance, high-replacement rates, more recruitment, and improvement rather than degradation over time, for example--there's more, but I don't want to be a bore. I have seen indigenous species (especially in grasslands) push the invading hordes aside. The aliens were not all-powerful after all! This was not collapse, this was re-invasion by our noble natives! That trend, taken to its logical conclusion would lead to a recapture of dominance by indigenous forces and suppression of the aliens to the point where any survivors were toppled from they bully-pulpits and relegated to the jobs for which they are best-suited--colonizing areas injured by land misuse--much like, and often in concert with, indigenous pioneer species. WT PS: I'm trying to follow Dremann's standard by limiting my responses to one subject. Therefore, I have left responses to other subjects for later. I do not consider this response to be complete; nay, I invite others to fill in where I have left things out, and to correct my errors. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company" To: ; Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 8:01 AM Subject: [APWG] 99.5%-or-Bust Standard for March 20 San Mateo County WMAmeeting > Dear All, > > At our March 20 San Mateo County Weed Management Area meeting here in > northern California, I will be discussing the performance standard for the > native grasslands within our County, the topic will be "99.5% or Bust". > > That is what we have to do here in northern California, get the grassland > ecosystem back to 99.5% native cover, or it quickly or eventually > collapses back to a huge weed-patch, like the I-505 project at > http://www.ecoseeds.com/road.test.html > > At least every five year, we need to bring all of our measurments together > regarding weed management and ecological restoration, to see what > performance standards we have actually achieved. In that way, we can see > how much further we must go, in order to get to the 99.5% native cover > standard. > > Also, if all of the local land management agencies pool their achieved > performance standards for non-riparian grassland habitats, then if one > agency has spent serious money, like 1/2 million dollars from Caltrans, or > 1/3 million from our local Open Space District at > http://www.ecoseeds.com/invent.html, or the 25 years and $3 million for > our local HCP on San Bruno Mtn., then other can get educated on what those > studies or plantings produced? > > Each agency that manages land within a County, including the local road > department and the State highway department, share the same weed issues, > and those weed issues are also linked to every agency that has ecological > restoration issues. > > Therefore, it seems like there should be discussions started in every > County in the USA on how consistent and rapid performance standards for > both weed management and ecological restoration could be achieved, like in > the next 8 years. Perhaps we could sneak up on a performance standard, > year-by-year? > > If we take the I-505 performance standard that currently exists for > Sacramento Valley grasslands at 28% native cover, then if our goal is > 99.5% within the 8 years, that means by the end of this year, get about > 40% cover, then at the end of 2013, 46% cover, etc., until 8 years later, > you achieve 99.5% cover? > > Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list > APWG at lists.plantconservation.org > http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org > > Disclaimer > Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the > opinion of the individual posting the message. > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4792 - Release Date: 02/06/12 > From Craig at astreet.com Thu Feb 9 10:56:12 2012 From: Craig at astreet.com (Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:56:12 -0000 (UTC) Subject: [RWG] Cost analysis for weed management/restoration performance standards Message-ID: <1329.66.81.43.102.1328806572.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Dear All, To prepare for my March 20 talk in Redwood City, CA. about how to get 99.5% native cover when doing weeding projects or doing ecological restoration, I am asking everyone who is weeding or restoring native grasslands on public lands in our County. The results can be boiled down to = What is the cost per acre, to increase the percentage of native plant cover by one percent? For example, I just got the data from two projects funded by the Federal government, the USFWS in Endangered species habitat in the hills of Redwood City. The two different treatments produced different results, one was able to increase the native cover by 7% and the second raised the native cover by 15%. The 7% increase was a single treatment that cost $500 per acre per percentage native cover increase or $4,500 per acre. But repeated treatments using that method with the goal of getting 99.5% native cover, then the total cost to get 99.5% cover could be $45,000 per acre. The 15% native cover increase site, was done to help control weeds around an already existing Endangered plant species, and also increase the number of plants. That work required the growing out of plants, and careful hand weeding so as not to disturb the existing Endangered plants. The costs to increase each percentage of native cover, was $15,000 per acre, or a total of $225,000 per acre, which is identical with the costs of the Caltrans weed management/restoration project at http://www.ecoseeds.com/road.test.html. And to continue the treatments and plantings in this Endangered plant area, to get to 99.5% native cover, would be about $1.5 million per acre. That is why it is so important that we take a look annually at the actual costs per acre to get a single percentage native plant cover for our project. Looking at the actual costs to restore a site, would help agencies fund restoration projects like these more realistically, and maybe look for ways for the process to be done cheaper and more efficiently? Plus knowing the actual costs, would help public agencies to set more realistic bond requirements for pipeline and other projects on our public lands, or for more realistic, real-world amount for funds that are paid by developers for a HCP (Habitat Conservation Plan) mitigations, Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333 From landrest at cox.net Thu Feb 9 17:06:53 2012 From: landrest at cox.net (Wayne Tyson) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:06:53 -0800 Subject: [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Performance Standards Re: Cost analysis for weed management/restoration performancestandards References: <1329.66.81.43.102.1328806572.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Message-ID: <03be01cce77f$82ffb240$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> All: I'm not current on costs, but even back in the last century when I was active, these costs would have been ridiculously expensive. I think restoration practitioners in the consulting business are shooting their credibility in the foot when they so radically milk every project for the maximum they can get out of it. Restoration ecologists should stay the hell out of the applied business and stick to the science--honestly evaluating the effectiveness of practitioners' work. Circumstance do alter cases, so no two projects are going to cost the same, but the projects should be designed to work over time, not to some "standard" for any given shot at evaluation. "Cover" has no place in ecosystem standards, period. What matters is that the project continue to get better and better with time, not to shoot for "cover" consisting of a few fast-spreading pioneer species. Performance/design standards should be determined for each project by the consultant developing the program. Comparisons of what's happening in the field with what the consultant's objectives were can be started right away--this should be the job of the restoration ecologist (scientist or peer-reviewer). That should be based on species diversity, NOT percent survival or cover--BOTH of those "measures" are bogus and irrelevant to what an ecosystem is actually doing. What separates a real ecosystem from an assemblage of native plants is the degree to which the project resembles the potential of the site and what was there before, adjusted for changes beyond the project's scope. The artificial colonization should employ seeds rather than plants, and normal survivorship curves and community composition numbers, with reasonable envelopes around them, should be what's looked at, not their size, density, growth rate, or spread. The emerging organisms should be there, and there will be "losses"--that's the way ecosystems work. I have seen so much illogical stuff in the 12 years I've been retired--stuff that should have been learned long ago. Stuff I had to learn in the 1950's and '60's, and kept learning ever since. No one should be expected to know it all, and no one can get anywhere without mistakes. But we all should be able to learn from our mistakes. Apparently pride and profit come ahead of professionalism. I would like to know how else to explain it. It's depressing. WT "The worst kinda ignerance ain't so much not knowin', as 'tis knowin' so much that ain't so." --paraphrased from "Josh Billings" "Healthy ecosystems resist invasions." --paraphrased from Jack Ewel (that means that expensive "weed treatments" are likely not necessary or even desirable. Except to line the pockets of the weed-bashers? I'm growing increasingly suspicious that such might be the case.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company" To: ; Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 8:56 AM Subject: [RWG] Cost analysis for weed management/restoration performancestandards > Dear All, > > To prepare for my March 20 talk in Redwood City, CA. about how to get > 99.5% native cover when doing weeding projects or doing ecological > restoration, I am asking everyone who is weeding or restoring native > grasslands on public lands in our County. > > The results can be boiled down to = What is the cost per acre, to increase > the percentage of native plant cover by one percent? > > For example, I just got the data from two projects funded by the Federal > government, the USFWS in Endangered species habitat in the hills of > Redwood City. The two different treatments produced different results, > one was able to increase the native cover by 7% and the second raised the > native cover by 15%. > > The 7% increase was a single treatment that cost $500 per acre per > percentage native cover increase or $4,500 per acre. But repeated > treatments using that method with the goal of getting 99.5% native cover, > then the total cost to get 99.5% cover could be $45,000 per acre. > > The 15% native cover increase site, was done to help control weeds around > an already existing Endangered plant species, and also increase the number > of plants. That work required the growing out of plants, and careful hand > weeding so as not to disturb the existing Endangered plants. > > The costs to increase each percentage of native cover, was $15,000 per > acre, or a total of $225,000 per acre, which is identical with the costs > of the Caltrans weed management/restoration project at > http://www.ecoseeds.com/road.test.html. And to continue the treatments > and plantings in this Endangered plant area, to get to 99.5% native cover, > would be about $1.5 million per acre. > > That is why it is so important that we take a look annually at the actual > costs per acre to get a single percentage native plant cover for our > project. > > Looking at the actual costs to restore a site, would help agencies fund > restoration projects like these more realistically, and maybe look for > ways for the process to be done cheaper and more efficiently? > > Plus knowing the actual costs, would help public agencies to set more > realistic bond requirements for pipeline and other projects on our public > lands, or for more realistic, real-world amount for funds that are paid by > developers for a HCP (Habitat Conservation Plan) mitigations, > > Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333 > > > > _______________________________________________ > PCA's Restoration Working Group mailing list > RWG at lists.plantconservation.org > http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4798 - Release Date: 02/09/12 > From Craig at astreet.com Fri Feb 10 11:24:22 2012 From: Craig at astreet.com (Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:24:22 -0000 (UTC) Subject: [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration, weed project Performance Standards Costs Message-ID: <1630.66.81.42.128.1328894662.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Dear Wayne and All, Thanks for your email. When I gave a talk to a Federal government sponsored meeting in Monterey, that you can read at http://www.ecoseeds.com/talk.html, I included a photo of the fastest computer in the world in 1952-56, the Illiac-1, that had 5K of RAM and 64K of memory, and cost million of dollars. Today our cell phone has thousands of times that memory in the palm of our hands that we are offered free when we sign up for a calling plan. What I was suggesting in my talk, was that for weed management and ecological restoration of areas like grasslands, we are still in the Illiac-1 days, with the processes still inefficient, costly, and nobody is out measuring the performance standards yet for whatever we can currently accomplish. We need out agencies who are funding these projects, to go and find out in non-riparian projects, what was actually accomplished, like for the $42 million Riverside K-rat preserve, or the thousands of miles of oil and gas pipeline right-of-ways across the country, or the miles of highway roadsides after new construction funded by our Federal government. I agree that $1.5 million an acre that the USFWS is paying currently for the Redwood City project seems steep, or even the $225,000 per acre that Caltrans paid and still had 72% weed cover on their land after a decade of work, also seems to be an outrageous price to pay. One of the problems may be, is that neither Caltrans nor the USFWS ever asked any ecological restoration professionals if they had any licensed restoration technologies that could get the job done quicker or cheaper? They did not check with the professionals for these projects, and they still have not done so, up to this morning for any other weed management or restoration projects either. However, back to calculations of costs for projects--just like calculating the computer memory cost per Megabit of RAM, we could use the cost per acre to get one more percentage of native plant cover as one measurement, in a similar fashion? There could be other measurements invented to evaluate our successes, but at least a simple method to determine the cost to achieve one more percentage of native cover, then we will be able to start talking about those outrageous costs, similar to the cost of the Illiac-1 in its day? Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333 From Craig at astreet.com Mon Feb 13 22:43:58 2012 From: Craig at astreet.com (Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:43:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration, weed project Performance Standards Costs Message-ID: <1750.66.81.40.229.1329194638.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Dear All, I apologize if any reader thought that I was doing any self-promotion with any of my posts recently. I thought all the readers of these two lists, would be thrilled to know that high quality weeding and/or ecological restoration standards, are a possibility in 2012? When I was co-authoring papers with Dr. G. Ledyard Stebbins for the GRASSLANDS journal (Davis, California) in the late 1990s, we had many conversations about the possibility of achieving a 99+% performance standard for native grasslands and wildflower fields here in weed-choked California, and he did not think it would ever be possible. Now 12 years after his passing, we all know that it is possible. Michael Shaw, the private land owner and developer, got his 74 acres done with restoration technologies he mostly invented himself, to get to his 95% native cover today, after starting with that horrible 99% weed cover when I first saw the property in 1992. And Mark Vande Pol is an acquaintance of Shaw, and was influenced by Shaw's project, and for his 14 acres, Mark invented his own methods of weed control and ecological restoration, to get to the 99.5% weed-free standard that I saw last summer. It is like visiting the Weed-Free Promised Land, where I could walk 100 paces and not step on a single weed. What I am suggesting with my posts, is that Shaw and Mark--not botanists, nor ecologists, nor professionals, just simple private land owners--each independently figured out how to produce a 95%+ weed-free ecosystems in California--the most weed-infested place on the planet. So shouldn?t every single person on these two discussion lists who are working on weeding or restoring non-riparian ecosystems anywhere in the USA, be encouraged that there is the possibly of achieving the same Performance Standards as Mark and Shaw? Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333 From landrest at cox.net Tue Feb 14 13:31:27 2012 From: landrest at cox.net (Wayne Tyson) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:31:27 -0800 Subject: [RWG] [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration, weed project Performance Standards Costs References: <1750.66.81.40.229.1329194638.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> <4F3A7497.0000B6.03544@LTB> Message-ID: <003401cceb4f$3eab9e00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> All: I quite agree with WG, and shall try to stick to issues and refrain from too much bragging about the fact that I can leap tall buildings in a single bound, am stronger smelling than a steaming locomotive, and catch a speeding bullet in my teeth. Also, while I usually don't drink beer, when I do, I prefer horse-piss to XX. My mirror hath spoken. I promise to try to respond honestly and directly to all posts which require or stimulate a response, and shall endeavour to eschew all digression irrelevant to the poster's point, and keep my responses mercifully brief. I shall also try to K.I.S.S in the spirit of Einstein: ". . . as simple as possible, but no simpler." I will try to follow the convention to posting a single issue at a time, and will happily reform or correct upon notification by any of my list brethren and sisteren should I stray from any of my promises. Consistent with that policy, I also shall try to refrain from reading or responding to extended or convoluted essays, particularly when they are repetitive. I share WG's hope that these lists will become known as the "go to" place for honest discussion of the leading-edge issues in plant conservation. These statements are intended to apply to me only, and are not intended in any way to demand, nay, even to suggest that others do likewise. I remain quite open to suggestions for improvement. Yr. O'bt. Sv't., WT PS: Am I to understand correctly that, since responses to previous posts have been either absent or non-responsive on this subject that there is no interest in developing performance standards or in questioning those that might be said to be traditional or widely accepted by the professions concerned with plant conservation? Am I missing something, or is not such a discussion central to the purpose of plant conservation? ----- Original Message ----- From: WildLifeGardener To: apwg at lists.plantconservation.org ; rwg at lists.plantconservation.org Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 6:50 AM Subject: Re: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration,weed project Performance Standards Costs If one's intentions are truly honorable, one might try breaking out of what is referred to as the "me mode". Might I suggest that those sincerely interested in "reaching out to the public" begin by replying to that which has been previously ignored or danced in recent response to list contributions? Ignoring actual issues doesn't make them go away and dancing subjects as opposed to discussing them does little to foster productive discourse. Outmaneuvering those attempting to stimulate discussions does even less. Cheers, WildlifeGardener ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list APWG at lists.plantconservation.org http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org Disclaimer Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the opinion of the individual posting the message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4807 - Release Date: 02/13/12 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Craig at astreet.com Tue Feb 14 18:29:59 2012 From: Craig at astreet.com (Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:29:59 -0000 (UTC) Subject: [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration, weed project Performance Standards Message-ID: <1753.67.150.141.63.1329265799.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Dear Wayne and All, Regarding restoration performance and weed management standards---all I can personally contribute to these discussions are details about projects that I have recently measured, with linear toe-point transects (Evans & Love, 1957), so all the readers can have accurate scientific measurements of what has been accomplished so far. I hope that all the readers can appreciate accurate measurements, whenever discussing any topics that are as controversial as non-riparian Performance Standards for weeding projects or restoration projects in California--where tens of millions of dollars could be at stake if a project succeeds or fails? I just came back from driving through coastal California, on US 101 from San Jose to Los Angeles and back, and was looking all along the 400 miles route for any patches of our State native grass, the Nassella pulchra. I did spot a small patch in the median in Santa Barbara County, but it was only 10 feet wide by about 100 feet long. So that means, if you include the median plus a 10-foot width on both sides of US 101, out of 63 million square feet along that route, I only saw 1,000 square feet, which means that less than 0.002% of that plant is left in that portion of the seven counties I drove through. When you get down to less than 50% native cover in a huge area, you should start to worry? But when you look and see you achieved the awesome level of 99.998% weed cover in your understory, I am sure everyone will agree that is very, very, very bad? That could be called 99.998% bad? That is why it is so important to start discuss what we can work out for some successful weeding and restoration performance standards now, while we still have some examples of the original native ecosystems to use as models? Our vegetation understories in the arid West, and perhaps nationwide, may be too far gone, to be able to recover from the weeds all by themselves, without our help? Happy Valentines Day--love your local ecosystem, replant or protect some local native wildflowers. Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333 From Craig at astreet.com Wed Feb 15 08:26:18 2012 From: Craig at astreet.com (Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:26:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RWG] Computer program to reconstruct a weed-free, original ecosystem? Message-ID: <1379.67.150.140.120.1329315978.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Dear All, Using that $1.5 million/acre USFWS funded Thornmint recovery project in Redwood City as an example. I am wondering if anyone has ever thought about writing a computer program that could reconstruct the Thornmint plant community that existed in pre-weed times? I did for the Benicia Prairie that I was studying for a decade in the 1990s, that you can read about at http://www.ecoseeds.com/juicy.gossip.ten.html and got some help with some important concepts from Ken Kolence who wrote the first licensed software in Silicon Valley in 1967, a program we still use, the disk defragmentation program. What the idea is, to have the computer program calculate for you in terms of percentage cover, how many percentage cover of Thornmints you should see, and how many percentage cover of every other native species should be growing around the Thornmints? That is one of the problems with Shaw 74 acres and Mark?s 14 acres with their 95-99.5% native cover results, is that neither of their ecosystems have not been analyzed for missing native species, that help hold the ecosystems intact against the exotics from re-invading. Especially at Shaw?s, you can quickly see, even without a computer program to alert you, that part of the 5% missing are the native clovers that are extinct on the 74 acres, plus the summer tarweeds and Heterothecas are not there any more. I hope that everyone agrees, that unless we want either our weeding projects or our ecological restoration projects, to break down to continuous weeding projects that go on to infinity, we need to write computer programs to analyze what we need to see at the end of the day, in terms of native plant cover, with the correct species mix that would be able to withstand future weed invasions? Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333 From landrest at cox.net Wed Feb 15 17:12:44 2012 From: landrest at cox.net (Wayne Tyson) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:12:44 -0800 Subject: [RWG] [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration, weed project Performance Standards References: <1753.67.150.141.63.1329265799.squirrel@fast2.astreet.com> Message-ID: <00e201ccec37$52caca80$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> What's SPECIFICALLY controversial about performance standards? WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Dremann - Redwood City Seed Company" To: ; Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 4:29 PM Subject: [APWG] Ecosystem Restoration, weed project Performance Standards > Dear Wayne and All, > > Regarding restoration performance and weed management standards---all I > can personally contribute to these discussions are details about projects > that I have recently measured, with linear toe-point transects (Evans & > Love, 1957), so all the readers can have accurate scientific measurements > of what has been accomplished so far. > > I hope that all the readers can appreciate accurate measurements, whenever > discussing any topics that are as controversial as non-riparian > Performance Standards for weeding projects or restoration projects in > California--where tens of millions of dollars could be at stake if a > project succeeds or fails? > > I just came back from driving through coastal California, on US 101 from > San Jose to Los Angeles and back, and was looking all along the 400 miles > route for any patches of our State native grass, the Nassella pulchra. I > did spot a small patch in the median in Santa Barbara County, but it was > only 10 feet wide by about 100 feet long. > > So that means, if you include the median plus a 10-foot width on both > sides of US 101, out of 63 million square feet along that route, I only > saw 1,000 square feet, which means that less than 0.002% of that plant is > left in that portion of the seven counties I drove through. > > When you get down to less than 50% native cover in a huge area, you should > start to worry? But when you look and see you achieved the awesome level > of 99.998% weed cover in your understory, I am sure everyone will agree > that is very, very, very bad? That could be called 99.998% bad? > > That is why it is so important to start discuss what we can work out for > some successful weeding and restoration performance standards now, while > we still have some examples of the original native ecosystems to use as > models? > > Our vegetation understories in the arid West, and perhaps nationwide, may > be too far gone, to be able to recover from the weeds all by themselves, > without our help? > > Happy Valentines Day--love your local ecosystem, replant or protect some > local native wildflowers. > > Sincerely, Craig Dremann (650) 325-7333 > > > > _______________________________________________ > PCA's Alien Plant Working Group mailing list > APWG at lists.plantconservation.org > http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/apwg_lists.plantconservation.org > > Disclaimer > Any requests, advice or opinions posted to this list reflect ONLY the > opinion of the individual posting the message. > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2112/4809 - Release Date: 02/14/12 > From landrest at cox.net Sat Feb 25 21:33:33 2012 From: landrest at cox.net (Wayne Tyson) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:33:33 -0800 Subject: [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse Message-ID: <01e701ccf437$6ad84a00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> All: One of my fellow subscribers has been corresponding with me off-list the subject of ecosystem restoration standards, and I have been unsuccessful in persuading the subscriber to keep the discussion on-list, as I believe the subject is of broad common interest. This person apparently believes that I am the only one (with one or two others) interested, because no one else has weighed in on the subject. Is this person right? Are none but three or four of us interested in this topic? Should this and related topics be kept off list (to keep topics of restricted interest from clogging the in-baskets of the majority? If so, how many subscribers are there to APWG and RWG? I am hereby taking the liberty to broach the most recent topic, the collapse of ecosystem restoration projects, signified by the return of weed dominance in some cases. I would add to this that ecosystem restoration projects also "collapse" or fail to "take" whether or not weeds dominate. The off-list poster confined the comments to grasslands, so I will primarily address that issue, but the same principles hold true for other biomes and can be more broadly applied. First, the "return" of grassland restoration projects to weed-dominance. There are a number of reasons for this, some related to context issues like soil type, some related to restoration methods, but consideration of soil type must be part of the restoration assessment, planning, and execution process. Soil type is important; in the case of grassland restoration, it is preferable (actually essential) that a grassland soil is present--if it isn't, all the King of Restoration's horses and all the KoR's men and women will not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (without some major alterations to the soil). I invite others to expand and expound on this subject; I will mention only some factors. True grassland soils tend to have identifiable characteristics. They tend to develop on alluvial or aeolian soils of finer texture and containing considerable natural humus and soil flora/fauna, as well as mineral deposits at depth (commonly at or near the effective bottom of the root zone) such as calcium and sodium. Disturbance of such soils can render the site largely incapable of supporting a true grassland, such as when bulldozed or otherwise excavated and the surface is changed from a grassland-type soil to a jumbled mass, sometimes consisting of coarse B-horizon or deeper deposits unsuited to grassland development. This should be determined in the initial assessment and feasibility investigation, and consideration should be given to restoring an ecosystem/plant community type other than grasslands, at least as a transitional measure until something resembling a grassland soil can be developed. (Wholesale replacement of the degraded soil with grassland soil can be done, but it is terribly expensive.) If one tries to establish a grassland on non-grassland soils, one is most likely going to be disappointed, and "failure" is almost foreordained. I have, however, attempted to grow hair on such billiard-ball sites, with limited success. If other conditions are favorable, a soil can sometimes be developed (or its development accelerated) by certain tricks (e.g., praying for gopher or prairie-dog invasions, adding mycorrhizal fungi and other essential soil organisms, and transitional plantings of annual plants--sometimes even grasses, but more commonly dicots like weeds and flowers that will be humus-builders. Short-lived perennial plants, even some shrubs, also can be used. This approach is much cheaper than soil importation, and sometimes can be better. The actual strategy should fit the context. I should make it clear that my first fifteen years of attempting ecosystem restoration projects were all failures by my own standards, and I have continued to make some mistakes once ever since. One must, I believe, learn from actual experience. However, just experience is no guarantee of expertise. If I had stubbornly held on to what I "knew" and refused to consider that what I knew might be wrong, I would have continued to fail. I did get to the point that could reliably initiate ecosystem processes and avoid "collapse." All restoration practitioners can do is to accelerate ecosystem development anyway, largely by setting up conditions that will permit or even maybe encourage natural ecosystems processes to work. We don't actually restore living systems. In short, most failures can be traced back to the kind of work done and not done to set up favorable conditions for natural forces to work upon. In short, two of my biggest mistakes (there have been many others) have been to: a. fail to properly assess site conditions and develop a restoration program that modifies or matches those conditions. b. plant too many seeds and plants, spending far too much money and doing far too much presumptuous guesswork. If a grassland soil is present, indigenous species can persist and eventually re-assert dominance over weed populations. If one can mimic grassland soils, one has a chance of fostering the development of grassland, but one must out-draw the Lone Ranger to do it. If one is presumptuous enough to believe that all that needs to be done is to kill weeds and scatter seeds, collapse, unless one is terribly lucky, is rather more likely than not. Disturbed sites (from bulldozing to trampling) tend to favor weeds. They are the scabs, as it were, on the scarred face of the earth--not pretty, but an inevitable result of land mismanagement. 2. Collapse of "restored" ecosystems that do not necessarily result in dominance of weeds. This phenomenon is often the result of simply seeding or planting too many and/or the wrong balance of the right (and/or wrong) species at the wrong time, possibly including "maintenance." This can be the subject of another discussion, but I have run out of time . . . (and since it does not include weeds so much, it might be "inappropriate" for these lists. WT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From katie at westernwatersheds.org Mon Feb 27 08:11:54 2012 From: katie at westernwatersheds.org (Katie Fite) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 07:11:54 -0700 Subject: [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse In-Reply-To: <01e701ccf437$6ad84a00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> References: <01e701ccf437$6ad84a00$6401a8c0@wayneb2f97d881> Message-ID: Wayne, I am interested in the discussion. And discussions of what ecological restoration is, and also discussions of how the term "restoration" is currently being used by agencies or at times industry - to describe imposing major disturbances on mature or old growth woody vegetation communities - with such disturbances often then leading to weed invasions. Katie Fite On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: > ** > All: > > One of my fellow subscribers has been corresponding with me off-list the > subject of ecosystem restoration standards, and I have been unsuccessful in > persuading the subscriber to keep the discussion on-list, as I believe the > subject is of broad common interest. This person apparently believes that I > am the only one (with one or two others) interested, because no one else > has weighed in on the subject. Is this person right? Are none but three or > four of us interested in this topic? Should this and related topics be kept > off list (to keep topics of restricted interest from clogging the > in-baskets of the majority? If so, how many subscribers are there to APWG > and RWG? > > I am hereby taking the liberty to broach the most recent topic, the > collapse of ecosystem restoration projects, signified by the return of weed > dominance in some cases. I would add to this that ecosystem restoration > projects also "collapse" or fail to "take" whether or not weeds dominate. The > off-list poster confined the comments to grasslands, so I will primarily > address that issue, but the same principles hold true for other biomes and > can be more broadly applied. > > *First, the "return" of grassland restoration projects to weed-dominance.* > > There are a number of reasons for this, some related to context issues > like soil type, some related to restoration methods, but consideration of > soil type must be part of the restoration assessment, planning, and > execution process. Soil type is important; in the case of grassland > restoration, it is preferable (actually essential) that a grassland soil is > present--if it isn't, all the King of Restoration's horses and all the > KoR's men and women will not be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's > ear (without some major alterations to the soil). I invite others to expand > and expound on this subject; I will mention only some factors. > > True grassland soils tend to have identifiable characteristics. They tend > to develop on alluvial or aeolian soils of finer texture and containing > considerable natural humus and soil flora/fauna, as well as mineral > deposits at depth (commonly at or near the effective bottom of the root > zone) such as calcium and sodium. Disturbance of such soils can render the > site largely incapable of supporting a true grassland, such as when > bulldozed or otherwise excavated and the surface is changed from a > grassland-type soil to a jumbled mass, sometimes consisting of coarse > B-horizon or deeper deposits unsuited to grassland development. This should > be determined in the initial assessment and feasibility investigation, and > consideration should be given to restoring an ecosystem/plant community > type other than grasslands, at least as a transitional measure until > something resembling a grassland soil can be developed. (Wholesale > replacement of the degraded soil with grassland soil can be done, but it is > terribly expensive.) > > If one tries to establish a grassland on non-grassland soils, one is most > likely going to be disappointed, and "failure" is almost foreordained. I > have, however, attempted to grow hair on such billiard-ball sites, with > limited success. If other conditions are favorable, a soil can sometimes be > developed (or its development accelerated) by certain tricks (e.g., praying > for gopher or prairie-dog invasions, adding mycorrhizal fungi and other > essential soil organisms, and transitional plantings of annual > plants--sometimes even grasses, but more commonly dicots like weeds and > flowers that will be humus-builders. Short-lived perennial plants, even > some shrubs, also can be used. This approach is much cheaper than soil > importation, and sometimes can be better. The actual strategy should fit > the context. > > I should make it clear that my first fifteen years of attempting ecosystem > restoration projects were all failures by my own standards, and I have > continued to make some mistakes once ever since. One must, I believe, learn > from actual experience. However, just experience is no guarantee of > expertise. If I had stubbornly held on to what I "knew" and refused to > consider that what I knew might be wrong, I would have continued to fail. I > did get to the point that could reliably initiate ecosystem processes and > avoid "collapse." All restoration practitioners can do is to accelerate > ecosystem development anyway, largely by setting up conditions that will > permit or even maybe encourage natural ecosystems processes to work. We > don't actually restore living systems. > > In short, most failures can be traced back to the kind of work done and > not done to set up favorable conditions for natural forces to work upon. > > In short, two of my biggest mistakes (there have been many others) have > been to: > > a. fail to properly assess site conditions and develop a restoration > program that modifies or matches those conditions. > > b. plant too many seeds and plants, spending far too much money and doing > far too much presumptuous guesswork. > > If a grassland soil is present, indigenous species can persist and > eventually re-assert dominance over weed populations. If one can mimic > grassland soils, one has a chance of fostering the development of > grassland, but one must out-draw the Lone Ranger to do it. If one is > presumptuous enough to believe that all that needs to be done is to kill > weeds and scatter seeds, collapse, unless one is terribly lucky, is rather > more likely than not. > > Disturbed sites (from bulldozing to trampling) tend to favor weeds. They > are the scabs, as it were, on the scarred face of the earth--not pretty, > but an inevitable result of land mismanagement. > > > *2. Collapse of "restored" ecosystems that do not necessarily result in > dominance of weeds.* > > This phenomenon is often the result of simply seeding or planting too many > and/or the wrong balance of the right (and/or wrong) species at the wrong > time, possibly including "maintenance." > > This can be the subject of another discussion, but I have run out of time > . . . (and since it does not include weeds so much, it might be > "inappropriate" for these lists. > > WT > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PCA's Restoration Working Group mailing list > RWG at lists.plantconservation.org > > http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/rwg_lists.plantconservation.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From okwong at blm.gov Mon Feb 27 10:42:54 2012 From: okwong at blm.gov (Kwong, Olivia) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:42:54 -0700 Subject: [RWG] Ecosystem Restoration Collapse Message-ID: <0E0C090BB9A23D48804E88BAA52D679716B92E95D5@ILMOCOP-MS400.blm.doi.net> Hi everyone, If you are interested in the Ecosystem Restoration Collapse discussion, please follow it on the APWG list. If you are not already subscribed to APWG, you can do so by sending an email to apwg-request at lists.plantconservation.org with the following information in the body of the message (not the title): SUBSCRIBE Further information on the APWG list can be found at http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/maillist.htm Since I personally pay for the hosting of the lists and associated archive space, I am trying to keep duplicate copies of messages to a minimum. Thanks! Olivia Olivia Kwong CPC/PCA http://www.nps.gov/plants/ okwong at blm.gov 202-912-7232 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: