Some thoughts on Ecological Restoration

[Charley]

I've been thinking for a long time about wilderness, and Wilderness, and Nature in general. Some of you may be familiar with my thoughts from one of our annual dust-ups over mountain bike access. My ecological perspective predates my mountain bike activism, but it's all a little complicated to get into when we're having one of those discussions, so I've just barely referenced the ideas. I've just read a few books and articles that have really clarified my thinking and I thought it would be a good time to flesh out some of this philosophy, which is emerging from the academic field of restoration ecology, and the practice of permaculture.

First, some definitions might be useful:

Restoration Ecology: "Restoration ecology emerged as a separate field in ecology in the 1980s. It is the scientific study supporting the practice of ecological restoration, which is the practice of renewing and restoring degraded, damaged, or destroyed ecosystems and habitats in the environment by active human intervention and action." From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_ecology

Permaculture: "Permaculture is a system of agricultural and social design principles centered on simulating or directly utilizing the patterns and features observed in natural ecosystems. . . It has many branches that include but are not limited to ecological design, ecological engineering, environmental design, construction and integrated water resources management that develops sustainable architecture, regenerative and self-maintained habitat and agricultural systems modeled from natural ecosystems." From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

Here are a few of the things that I've learned from my casual (reading books) and practical (planting in my own backyard) study of both fields.

1. There exists no such thing as a pristine, untouched wilderness. That is to say, even in 1491, First Peoples had radically altered the ecosystem trajectories (more on that term later) of the North and South American continents. From widespread species extinction (large mammals such as wooly mammoths and ground sloths), to deforestation in the East and Southwest, to the fire burning regimes that created the incredibly productive white oak woodlands here in the Willamette Valley, these continents have experienced large changes at the hands of humans for millennia. (See Notes at bottom)

2. While the earliest (and, I've got to say, wildly successful) North American environmental movement focused on preserving "pristine" or "pure" wild areas, namely in the form of National Park and Monuments, that movement either was ignorant of or plainly ignored the Native involvement in those very landscapes. It's as if First Peoples never existed. Given our current understanding of history, that's insulting to these people and their history of engagement with those lands (see above and Notes). This ahistorical definition of our wildest places has the effect of leading us to these negative practices:
A. manage these places as if they have existed at a stable state for millennia without human involvement.
B. prioritize protecting the ecology of very scenic places that have less visible effects of human involvement. (This has had lasting consequences, because, while the high mountain places and geological wonders of our National Parks are beautiful, other ecosystems that had incredible biodiversity and provided important ecosystem services [such as marshes, bogs, prairies, desert grasslands and shore dunes] were developed for human use without any thought to preservation. Note also that Chaco Canyon and other "cultural landscapes" are outliers in this analysis, though the abandonment of those cave dwellings does point to the overwhelming environmental impact that those Natives had on their environment).

3. In the Americas, it is possible to look back in time to a period before the Quaternary Exctinction events, and say "this is the pristine wilderness, before even the First Peoples came." That said, the ecology of that time period would be different than what's possible on any given plot of land today, due to pre-historic climate changes and the aforementioned extinction events. That's right, the climate's been changing for a long time, and species distribution has changed right along with climate, as well as other factors. There may be no stable ecological state for any plot of land. One fascinating example is that of the chestnut.

The chestnut dominated the overstory of the Eastern hardwood Forest when Europeans arrived. We could be forgiven for thinking that this important and highly productive tree (nuts, nut-fed game, and wood) was a continuous part of the landscape, but fossil pollen records indicate that the chestnut only arrived in the Northeast about two thousand years ago. It appears that, after the latest glaciation period, other tree species were much quicker to colonize the newly bare soil of the Northeast. Had Europeans arrives three thousand years ago, we would have found forests of ash, birch, ironwood, oak and maple. . . but no chestnut. So, even though I'm a big fan of chestnuts and their restoration, I'm now aware that restoration of this species wouldn't represent a return to "how these forest should be," but something rather more interesting: "an ecology that this landscape had at one point in time." (See Notes)

4. The replacement for "stable state" or "climax community" is the idea of ecosystem trajectories. In this idea, as developed in the ecological restoration discipline, restoring an area to a certain historical "reference state" should allow it to get back on track, as it were, and follow its own "natural" trajectory over time. I'll give an example, at least as I understand it. Different native species have a range of tolerances, even if they co-exist in a relatively small area. A community of species might co-exist in the same square mile, but some species might prefer the higher, sunnier, drier places, while others prefer lower, shadier, wetter places. As the climate warms, native species that are better suited to warmer conditions may come to dominate in an area that formerly held a more equal mix of species.

A good example might be native Ponderosas in the Willamette Valley (there are native pondies here, they're just rare). Could it be that, if the climate warms enough, ponderosa would come to dominate, relative to douglas fir, in a more sun-baked Willamette Valley? So, in other words, while a non-native tree (say, ailanthus or mesquite) could end up dominating in a more desert-like Willamette Valley, wouldn't it be better to have something that's a native? I've noticed that a lot of highway margins are being planted with pondies now, and I've been wondering if this reflect both the toughness of the tree (seems like a good idea for such an impacted environment) and ODOT's understanding that our climate may warm up and dry out, especially in the summer. While that change may make it impossible for the douglas firs to survive, given the ponderosa's comfort with summer warmth and dryness, wouldn't they be better prepared to survive that future, and wouldn't it be better to have a forest of healthy pondies than a dying or dead forest of douglas firs?

5. "Assisted colonization" is taking this idea one step further: let's say we're really baking over here in the Willamette Valley in 100 years. Should ecologists then plant a forest of junipers? This is getting into territory that's sort of charted (kudzu in the Southeast, himalayan blackberry in the Northwest) and sort of uncharted (what will the climate be at any point in the future?). While the possibilities are certainly scary, the alternative to doing this kind of unthinkable eco-engineering is to do unthinkable geo-engineering (using powerful technologies to change our climate itself), or simply risk letting every place turn into a brown, crunchy desert full of dead trees.

I guess this is where the science loses out and the science fiction takes over. Without radical changes in some fundamental philosophies and practices of our society, we will change our environment to the point it is unrecognizable and less supportive of life.

Let’s talk about some of those “radical changes in some fundamental philosophies and practices.”

6. Permaculture is a form of eco-engineering that puts humans at the center of an interdependent web of life. It's an alternative to agriculture, which assumes a bare piece of earth subjugated by plow and/or herbicides to allow a weed-free planting of annual plants which are harvested and die every year. This form of growing food has a number of ill effects (See Notes), despite the boosterism of the Green Revolution. (I'd like to note that organic practices lessen the ill effects in some ways and actually exacerbate the ill effects [namely, repeated tilling, instead of herbicide use, depletes the soil quite rapidly] See Notes!).

The goal of most permaculturists looks something like the idea of a "forest garden," in which trees, shrubs, vines, herbs and such provide yields for both human and non-human life, as described by Dave Jacke and Eric Toensmeier:

"* High yields of diverse products such as food, fuel, fiber, fodder, fertilizer, 'farmaceuticals' and fun;
* A largely self-maintaining garden and;
* A healthy ecosystem."

A forest garden is just one idea in permaculture, which is actually typically called a "design process," but it's one of the more important ones for tropical and temperate climate places. In places where the world naturally wants to grow trees, growing food on trees turns out to be a really sustainable, healthy way to grow food.

7. When practiced well, permaculture can have a regenerative effect on the land. Here are some benefits:
increase in percentage organic matter in soil
carbon sequestration
increased biodiversity
pollinator support
allowing spent agricultural land to be fallowed or restored
less herbicide and pesticide use
less synthetic fertilizer use, which, in turn, can lead to…
… less fossil fuel use and fewer algae blooms
genetic resilience of food plants

8. Given these benefits to our active engagement with the land, permaculture provides an alternative perspective to the dominate theme of “sustainability” in environmentalism. We’re quite used to the day-to-day practice of sustainability as “low impact.” As a dictum, it could be written “Thou shalt impact less.” Well, that’s okay in many respects. It’s one of the reasons I ride a bike to work. But that leads us down a dark path. Wouldn’t it be better not to exist at all, if our only effect is negative? Wouldn’t dying and composting oneself provide the best example of “low impact”? I reject that. Sustainability is not even going to work, considering the rising population of our planet. We need to do better than maintain; we need to regenerate, restore.

9. I want to have lots of impact; regenerative impact. I want to leave the environment better than I found it. Permaculture is one avenue, and restoration ecology is another. Through both practices, I hope to improve the land that my wife and I live on in Southeast Portland. It’s a fifth of an acre, and it’s my little attempt at righting the many wrongs of the world.

10. This perspective, that humans can be agents for the restoration of our planet, has changed my approach to several controversies in the environmental community. I have become an advocate for anything that gets people (and especially children, who are both ready to learn new attitudes and have many years of life ahead of them) outside and in the dirt. The world is chock full of distractions from the earth. A smart phone, a TV, and this computer itself (where I have a view of the bluejay that hangs out all day in my backyard) all lure us inside into a cool a-biotic glow. We need to resist that urge to tune in and chill out. Now’s the time to get outside and interact with our world.

11. I view many user-conflict issues in outdoor recreation from this perspective. New trails for bikes? Sure; let's put them somewhere close to where the bike riders live. New ATV trail network? Sure, but maybe somewhere like a second or third growth forest. A Forest Service target shooting area with a restroom, trashcans, and stalls for safety? Sure, but how about an out of the way place. Well managed hunting of charismatic megafauna? Sure, though wolves aren’t ready for that yet, here.

12. Don’t these many user groups have an environmental impact? Sure they do! We climbers have been booting rutted trails into the Cascades for generations. In a perfect world, that’s not preferable, but in this world, the conservation work that the Mazamas alone have accomplished more than makes up for that impact. Cyclists create erosion on trails, for sure (though no more than hikers, according to scientists who study this kind of thing). But wouldn’t it be better to have a united front of cyclists and hikers working together to counter the threat of clear cut logging in the Mt Hood National Forest? It may be that a trail system like that of the Columbia River Gorge has a negative effect, ecologically, but if there weren’t any trails there, would people still care as deeply about the possibility of a water bottling plant or crude oil spill? A place unvisited isn’t pristine or pure, it’s at risk.

13. My final argument: this ideology of “pristine and pure wilderness” that benefits from a complete lack of human involvement is actually harmful on the whole. Many highly impacted places, such as the Willamette Valley, need our hands-on restorative or regenerative abilities and energies. Less impacted places, such as the Cascade Crest, have actually felt millennia of human impact (drastically, now, with climate change), and will require massive, publicly supported conservation efforts to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. Those wildest areas will require voters in favor of conservation, and most such voters are passionate lovers of those wild places due to their recreational experiences. Research on species migration and genetic diversity is beginning to show that we need larger corridors of wild areas, even if they're not "pure," and not just high mountain redoubts.

Not only does the ideology lead us into poor management choices, but it also turns off people who might otherwise be our allies. Many people are quite aware of the environmental challenges facing our planet. When they hear of the latest environmental disaster or degradation, many of them throw up their hands and give up. I wouldn’t advocate that we avoid talking about the negative, but shouldn’t we talk about the positive possibilities of the future? Massive amounts of human impact are required to right our world, but small changes can have a big impact locally. An individual can do a lot! But the ideology of “humans bad, nature good” doesn’t leave much of a place for that work, or that optimism. The population is predicted to rise this century. Unless we humans figure out an active but beneficial way to live with nature, we won’t have any left. Let’s tell the story of humanity working for good!

I've really enjoyed seeing those new ads from the Forest Service that proclaim, "Every neighborhood has a Naturehood." While the old ideology is one man vs. wild, or humans vs nature, or preserve-those- mountains-and-drain-the-heck-out-of-this-marsh, a more realistic view of nature forces us to engage with our environment every moment of every day. Separation is an illusion. We're in Nature all the time.
_____________________________________________________________

From my perspective, anything that gets people outdoors gives them a chance to break the bonds of digital dependency and is part of the solution to the greatest problem our species has ever faced. Without more pairs of dirty boots and more happy smiles, we few nature nuts won’t have the political will to fight the real enemies of our environment: habitat destruction, energy development, resource extraction, as well as the apathy of a populace too distracted by their digital screens and turned off by “doom and gloom”.

PS: This essay would fit into a perhaps larger picture of the debate between “preservation” and “conservation.” I’d argue that the moral core of preservationism is persuasive, but it’s an outmoded philosophy given the history (of changing climate and human use) and future (swelling population and climate change) of our earth. Some places need as much preservation as we can afford; other places need as much hands on work as we can afford. We’d be lucky to preserve anything of our natural heritage if we don’t learn to conserve (or better yet, use regeneratively) the natural resource capital that we currently have on the planet.

Thanks for reading! I know it’s a long read.


Notes:

For a really engaging article from the Atlantic on the state of America before the European arrival:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... 91/302445/

For pre-European extinctions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternar ... tion_event

For recent studies linking sediment loads in the Delaware River Basin to pre-European deforestation: https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunicati ... tory=90379

For a book length explanation of how the First People practiced horticulture in the Northwest:
https://www.amazon.com/Keeping-Living-T ... entries*=0

For a history of huckleberry harvesting and cultivation:
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr657.pdf

For a brief, highly readable account of the long history of the chestnut:
http://highstead.net/pdfs/2014-72-2-ame ... estnut.pdf

For a description of climax community:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climax_community

Assisted colonization:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_colonization

Negative effects of agriculture:
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footpri ... e/impacts/

On no-till farming:
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/ ... reject-it/

A new idea from restoration ecology, the “novel ecosystem”:
http://emmamarris.com/books/

[turtle]

Thank you. You added to my reading list.

[Webfoot]

I really enjoyed reading this. It refines and extends my own thoughts on the subject.

[drm]

Charley,

I would respond with a few points.

1. While it is true that indigenous populations had a larger effect on the land than is popularly known, and in fact there may not have been so many millions of bison roaming the plans prior to the devastation of native human populations by European diseases, whether they were the prime cause of the extinctions that occurred 10-12,000 years ago is a raging debate in the scientific community. There are arguments on both sides and I'm not going to go into them here.

2. I also think it's true that a "pristine environment", taken to it's extreme, is nearly an impossibility. But rather than dive into that semantic definition, better to focus on what it is not: massive resource extraction, massive paving over, etc. Those who call for a pristine environment may not be getting exactly what they call for, but then again, those who want to stop or slow down global warming and call to "save the planet" are not really saving the planet, they are saving the things that live on it. Same difference to me.

3. And the big issue: management - how much and where. And I think "where" is the most important part of that. Permaculture and other types of environmentally sensitive management plans are appropriate for some places. Leaving places alone to be on their own may be more appropriate elsewhere. If there is any lesson from ecology, it is that one-size fits all plans don't really work. Permaculture may well be best for the Willamette Valley, but not the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. We need to eat, but so does everything else that is alive.

[Charley]

1. While it is true that indigenous populations had a larger effect on the land than is popularly known, and in fact there may not have been so many millions of bison roaming the plans prior to the devastation of native human populations by European diseases, whether they were the prime cause of the extinctions that occurred 10-12,000 years ago is a raging debate in the scientific community. There are arguments on both sides and I'm not going to go into them here.

Okay. Point taken.

2. I also think it's true that a "pristine environment", taken to it's extreme, is nearly an impossibility. But rather than dive into that semantic definition, better to focus on what it is not: massive resource extraction, massive paving over, etc. Those who call for a pristine environment may not be getting exactly what they call for, but then again, those who want to stop or slow down global warming and call to "save the planet" are not really saving the planet, they are saving the things that live on it. Same difference to me.

Based on your comment above, you would argue that a more useful definition of "pristine" would refer to areas that aren't subject to industrial impacts like paving and resource extraction. We agree. I wouldn't be arguing against the utility of this terminology if the term wasn't used as a weapon against other recreational users in discussions about places that aren't suffering industrial impacts. In other words, when someone complains that we shouldn't allow bikes in Forest Park because it's a "pristine wilderness," it's those uses that are narrowing the term. Forest Park isn't paved over, so it qualifies; would the presence of a person riding a bicycle on a forest path destroy it's quality of "pristine-ness?" Surely not, especially in comparison to real threats like logging. So, again, it sounds like we agree on this.

3. And the big issue: management - how much and where. And I think "where" is the most important part of that. Permaculture and other types of environmentally sensitive management plans are appropriate for some places. Leaving places alone to be on their own may be more appropriate elsewhere. If there is any lesson from ecology, it is that one-size fits all plans don't really work. Permaculture may well be best for the Willamette Valley, but not the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. We need to eat, but so does everything else that is alive.

We agree on this, too. As I wrote above: "Some places need as much preservation as we can afford; other places need as much hands on work as we can afford." There's plenty enough already impacted land to garden and use for resources, and, honestly, I'd like to hope that we could actually shrink that footprint; this should provide us with more space to "preserve," if you like the term. A whole suite of designations, legal and management-wise, are necessary to reflect different kinds of management priorities that will restore our landscapes.

[Webfoot]

Charley, how is Japan viewed in these fields? I haven't really looked into it and maybe it's just an image for TV, but I have been impressed by the apparent contrast and dichotomy of Japan having the biggest city in the world and high population density, yet many well preserved natural areas. I know there are issues such as overfishing in international waters but it seems like Japan is ahead of the curve in other areas.

[Charley]

Charley, how is Japan viewed in these fields? I haven't really looked into it and maybe it's just an image for TV, but I have been impressed by the apparent contrast and dichotomy of Japan having the biggest city in the world and high population density, yet many well preserved natural areas. I know there are issues such as overfishing in international waters but it seems like Japan is ahead of the curve in other areas.

Here's an in-depth paper about river and floodplain restoration (reminds me of the Foster Floodplains Natural Area). One interesting project is that they're restoring formerly year-round wet rice paddies (which in more modern times had apparently been allowed to fallow and drain in the winter) to remain wet year round, in order to sustain species of fish which relied on these artificial wetlands. This relates to the idea of "cultural landscape," which puts our understanding of the land right into our understanding of the history of its use by humans. Humans were apparently selecting (in the Darwinian sense) for species that thrived under their particular management regimes, much as the First People of the Willamette Valley selected for deer and acorns by burning.

http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/co ... 5/419.full

River and wetlands seem like the biggest focus over there.

There are deeply controversial issues regarding soil quality in former and current US military bases in Japan. This seems to me like the least exciting and most depressing part of restoration: removing awful things first.

http://apjjf.org/2013/11/47/Sakurai-Kun ... ticle.html

This isn't an academic paper, but it is an interesting account of Japanese forestry history.

http://ecotippingpoints.org/our-stories ... lture.html

I'd like to point out that Japan may have reduced deforestation on its own shores, but an increased foreign supply of wood might simply be offshoring that problem to countries with more lax environmental policies. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. We might applaud Japan for conserving trees at home, but I'd be curious to know the effects of logging from their import market. It might be better, even for Japan to log more of its tree plantations, if it saves Indonesian old-growth.

One final point, which comes to me because I know a bit about Japanese culture: Japanese culture, like Eastern Asia in general, puts more influence on public than private, on collective than individual, as compared to Anglo or European society. That might be a powerful factor in ecological restoration, because the "tragedy of the commons" is an effect of personal taking of public goods. The concept of "mottainai" is a powerful one, and might give Japan a cultural reason for repairing and sustaining natural resource capital. I don't know if the concept is all that culturally relevant here, but it's one I love.