Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r "2731 <br />d tJ.. <br />Opportunities for Ecological Iinprovement Along the Lower Colorado River <br />Mark Briggs and Steve Cornelius <br />7/24/97 <br /> <br />mitigate for disturbances in other areas. Other efforts, like the Mittry Lake revegetation <br />effort, were completed to enhance habitat for wildlife. <br /> <br />Developing project objectives with greater detail would significantly benefit future <br />recovery efforts. The objective of the Mittry Lake revegetation effort (to improve <br />habitat for wildlife), for example, would be much improved by a description of the <br />wildlife species that the created habitat was designed to benefit Such a explicit <br />objective would allow project managers to see a clear endpoint and develop recovery <br />strategies that are geared toward establishing a relatively specific type of environment <br /> <br />Depending on the detail required, project objectives could then go as far as describing <br />the plant density, diversity, and vertical complexity that needs to be created before a <br />project is deemed successful. Such detail will greatly aid in determining project success <br />and the need for future efforts. <br /> <br />Consider using recovery strategies other than revegetation <br />The Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, <br />and others have used revegetation strategies extensively along the lower Colorado <br />River to re-establish native riparian plants. Despite some notable revegetation <br />successes, it is obvious that the results of these artificial-planting efforts pale in <br />comparison to nature's own regenerative capabilities. Comparing the natural <br />regeneration that was experienced at the confluence of the Colorado and Gila Rivers <br />following the 1983 and 1993 floods to the results of artificial revegetation efforts <br />underscores the need to create opportunities for more cost-effective and significant <br />impacts through natural regeneration strategies. Such comparisons may be unfair, but <br />they nevertheless highlight the need to evaluate the recovery strategies that are being <br />implemented along the lower Colorado River to determine whether the money that is <br />being spent is having the desired effects. <br /> <br />Revegetation is often limited in its effectiveness because it often does not address the <br />causes of ecological deterioration (Briggs 1996). Essentially, the goal of revegetation is <br />to replace lost plants. If the root causes for the loss are not adequately addressed or are <br />not well understood, it is very likely that artificially-planted materials will meet the <br />same demise as those that they are trying to replace. Most successful revegetation <br />efforts are implemented in concert with strategies that address the reasons behind the <br />ecological damage that has occurred (Briggs 1996). ' <br /> <br />The question that needs to be answered is whether the money, time, and energy that is <br />being spent on revegetation can be better directed on implementing other types of <br />recovery or maintenance strategies? To answer this important question, it is imperative <br />that river managers assess a range of recovery options and attempt to tie specific <br />strategies to the unique characteristics of specific reaches of the river. <br /> <br />Page 19 <br />