Lessons from 30 years of habitat restoration in Central California with three case studies

Thomas W. Mulroy, Biology Section, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), Carpinteria, CA, John Storrer, Storrer Environmental Services, Santa Barbara, CA, Tamara Klug, Cardno Entrix, Santa Barbara, CA and Wayne R. Ferren Jr., Ecological Services, Maser Consulting P.A., Red Bank, NJ Background/Question/Methods Habitat restoration is a young science with old roots.  Its development was spurred in part by passage of NEPA (1969), requiring mitigation for development impacts, as well as increased recognition of the need for ecological land management instead of simple “preservation.”  Restoration is firmly rooted in applied ecological sciences, including range management, wildlife management, watershed management, and forestry, but has become a major focus of a broader range of ecologically-trained scientists; in the past 15 years ESA meetings have increasingly focused on restoration and land management and been cosponsored with the Nature Conservancy and Society of Ecological Restoration, for example.  Potential arises for tension between “academic” and restoration ecology, with the latter operating under inherent constraints leading to short planning and assessment horizons as well as lack of continuity at sites and among projects. We profile three substantial restoration projects on California’s central coast initiated in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. At the time locally applicable models were inadequate and timeframes did not allow for experimental trials to determine the best approach. The projects involved revegetation of a pipeline corridor through sensitive coastal habitats, creation of coastal dune wetlands, and reestablishment of maritime chaparral. The goals were to restore or create habitat similar to the pre-disturbance condition. Projects were bounded by predominantly natural areas. Our evaluations are based on project-based monitoring conducted after implementation (typically for 5 years), coupled with recent observations by the senior author. We reflect back on three major restoration efforts using a time scale and continuity unusual in this young field. Results/Conclusions Successful approaches included: (1) use of local genetic material (seed, salvaged plants, and cuttings), (2) division of a linear project into zones corresponding to different plant communities, with specific seed mixes and collection areas for each, (3) use of native successional species to quickly establish native plant cover and allowing longer-lived species disperse gradually into the area, thus avoiding human pattern imposition on the landscape, (3) concurrent monitoring of natural and created wetlands. Lessons learned include: (1) never underestimate the power of invasive species to spread quickly across the landscape, (2) expect the unexpected (wildland fire, exceptional drought, exceptional freezing spell) (3) build in contingencies.