Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
Restoration has always had a certain ring to it. It's a word that makes peo-
ple feel not only active and constructive in a positive way but also consid-
erate of both history and progress. But as humans both invade and attempt
to salvage what's left of the ecosystem, “restoration” is becoming more
complicated.
If, for example, a big new mudflat is created by breaching a levee, and
instantly colonized by non-native cordgrass, was the project worthwhile?
Is there a need to accommodate adaptations species have already made to
altered bay environs—the favoring of salt ponds by shorebirds or the nest-
ing in hybrid cordgrass by Clapper Rails? If the central tenet of restoration
now, as one expert suggests, is to “try to work with nature and let nature
do the work,” is the human definition of nature still valid? Is a non-native
species, or a habitat made of plastic and riprap, worthy of preservation?
The answer to some of these problems may lie in considering the bay as a
dynamic, changing system, and in trying to sustain ecosystem processes
rather than saving specific places and species.
It may be time, local restoration experts say, to revisit the goals for bay
habitats written more than 10 years ago. Any update should embrace both
lessons learned over the past 10 years and the challenges ahead presented
by climate change. Marilyn Latta thinks planners should be working to-
ward “thoughtfully integrated designs all the way from creeks to tidal
marsh and subtidal habitat. It's a more holistic, living shorelines approach
to healing bay habitats.”
Economics must also play a role in such an equation. The long-term
environmental costs of short-term profit will be severe in the Bay Area,
where so much of the region's core infrastructure is built on the shaky
foundations of quick and dirty fill.
As locals confront the challenges of planning for urban growth in the
context of a warming atmosphere, rising bay, and dwindling water supply,
the concept of sustainability will become increasingly important. The
elephant in the room, according to UC Berkeley scientist Luna Leopold,
is “the crushing force emanating from the national pursuit of unlim-
ited growth. . . . The best science and the most useful application . . . may
be negated by [our] failure to draw some limits on the exposure of the
ecosystem.”
