Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
Restoration on a watershed scale demands multifaceted projects con-
ducted over hundreds of square miles. Connecting the dots between cool
rapids upstream and warm shallows downstream; between cottonwood
stands and underwater weeds; between fish hatcheries, dam removals, and
low-flow toilets, requires a broad mind and a powerful computer. It also
requires a willingness to revisit long-standing assumptions.
So far, progress in the struggle to renaturalize the watershed and the
bay remains intangible. For decades now, scientists and resource managers
have been trying to measure whether their work has resulted in healthier
species or a healthier ecosystem. But trying to figure out what works and
what doesn't, and changing course accordingly, has been an uphill battle
prolonged by the lack of funding for long-term monitoring, bureaucratic
inertia, and political shifts.
Without the will or the consistency to effect major changes, “We're
faced with essentially retrofitting a fundamentally damaging system to
create a different balance between human and nonhuman activities,” says
Stanford's Freyberg.
Whether called retrofitting, restoration, or renaturalization, the value
of reviving long-absent connections between the watershed and the bay is
clear. In this altered waterscape, designers must piece together the best of
what's left of nature with a lot of other ingredients: steel and jute, concrete
and mud, garbage and purple pipes filled with recycled water. As engi-
neers blast holes in river levees and bayshore dikes, and add plumbing and
pumps to return water to the land, new hybrid habitats are growing up
from the Sierra headwaters to the salt ponds near San Jose.
