There's a local issue here in Maryland that involves the potential development of a mostly retired farm that has a few patches of pretty nice woods on it. Most field ecologists would describe it that way, certainly, with additional details about the declining health of some very large specimen trees, or the unstable nature of eroding streams on the property. Or even categories like "primary buffer" and "priority forest." These are all assessments based on "form," which in the environmental assessment world, lies somewhere between "appearance" and "function." And since one of the six classically defined functions of a natural place is "aesthetics and viewshed," and since observations like, "numerous infected nut-bearing trees" have direct ties to ecological function, let's not dismiss "environmental form."
The problem arises, as it has on this individual project, when passionate environmentalists and occasionally the odd "cubicle ecologist" decide to do their own assessment....one that's based on basic appearances. The eroding creek onsite is causing significant pollution problems downstream (a river defined as "biologically dead" for most of the summer), and yet these advocates have stated that the farm "keeps the watershed clean and healthy downstream." What? Another claim has been that the property should be saved because of its value to wildlife (note: no one from the environmental community has in any way proposed to purchase the property, they only seek to deny development rights to the landowners). The document proceeds to list the wildlife of concern: "Deer, frogs, and turtles." Here's the thing. I live in a 75 year old house inside City limits. We have deer, frogs, raccoons, foxes, rabbits, hawks, snakes, bald eagles, and even nesting herons. Hopefully these folks don't find out about my neighborhood, or they'll petition the City to force us to abandon it. It's also worth noting that the City intentionally annexed this property and zoned it for dense development for several years ago, with no complaint from the environmental community because there was no immediate threat.
So what really needs to be saved - protected - denied from development? It has to do with function. Why in the world would we battle to save (read: leave alone) a stream that is eating its own banks and shooting the polluted sediment right downstream into public fishing and crabbing waters? Why would we save (read; buy with tax dollars) a woodlot that is actually an old pasture that somebody forgot to mow too many years in a row, and so some trees of questionable to moderate value popped up? Is there seriously no higher priority resource anywhere in the area in need of saving?
So, what is ecological function? Function is an expression of the relationship between patterns, processes, and mechanisms that drive environmental form (and possibly environmental appearance).The notion of environmental preservation is - or should be - based on the notion of permanently protecting, usually via fee simple purchase or easement purchase, the highest-functioning at-risk habitats under consideration by the folks with the money.
What does "high functioning" mean? High functioning habitats are those whose biogeochemical interactions span across numerous temporal and spatial scales. Or, as some may put it, multiple feedback loops with very few "free radicals." Everything has value. Everything is used. Very little leaves the habitat. A recent study by US Fish and Wildlife Service found that functionally "clean" water in suburban areas is correlated with a drainage area less than 10% covered in impervious surface. Drainage areas covered 10-25% in pavement were "moderate functioning," and USFWS declared that most drainages over 25% impervious are biologically impaired. So before you claim that the water coursing through your favorite site is "clean and fresh," make sure, at minimum, that it drains less than 10% pavement.
No comments:
Post a Comment