UC DANR
Conservation Biology Workgroup

Projects

Restoration Monitoring in California

(Proposal | Progress report)

Proposal (as proposed and funded for FY 2002–03)

Rationale. Habitat restoration has become part of the mitigation strategy for endangered specieas protection. Restoration of disturbed sites is driven by the ESA mitigation requirements, as well as mitigation under the National Environmental Policy Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Clean Water Act. However, the monitoring requirements to determine the success of habitation restoration are not stringent. California has a Mitigation Monitoring Act (AB 3180), but compliance with this Act is dependent upon sufficient staffing by local agencies in charge. As a result, the few existing surveys show that 50% or more of small restoration projects (in or outside of California) are not in compliance with the original mitigation requirements (Fenner 1991, Lockwood and Pimm 1999). Very large restoration projects that are in the public eye, such as the Bay Delta Project, would likely not fall in this category of neglected restoration projects. This still leaves a large amount of degraded land that is eroding or weed-infested, and does not promote the conservation of habitat that was intended by the various Acts.

Proposed methodology. Literally thousands of mitigation restoration habitats exist in California by now, scattered throughout the state. Their locations are generally known by local advisors and clientele, and additional sites can be found by contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the State Department of Fish and Game, the Coastal Commission, and other government and private organizations. Members of the Conservation Biology Workgroup would contact Advisors and agencies to obtain information about the existence of these restoration mitigation sites. We would obtain information from local agencies about the mitigation requirements, then visit the site to determine to what extent the site has been restored. Potential categories would be a) complete noncompliance, e.g., no evidence of attempts at restoration, b) evidence of attempts to comply, but failure of treatments, e.g., the presence of dead transplants, eroded soil, weeds, and c) compliance and successful establishment of required vegetation or other treatments.

Students or technicians would be hired locally (e.g., at UCR, UCD, and UCB) to visit the local restoration sites, and Advisors would be involved as much as possible. The information from each site would be entered into a database that is maintained by the UCR Center for Conservation Biology. The information from these sites would be disseminated to agencies and individuals responsible for mitigation, Advisors, and researchers, and policy makers who would like to study the impacts of individual sites. Such an effort would bring to light information on these many neglected sites, and help to improve the status and research efforts in habitat and species conservation.

Expected outcome. There is potential for an increasing rate of compliance in mitigation efforts. Bringing the data to higher visibility will be the first step. Agencies and other units with responsibilities for compliance will be served by this database.

References.
Fenner, T.S. 1991. Cumulative impacts to San Diego County Wetlands under Federal and State Regulatory Programs: 1985-1989. M.S. Thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, California.
Lockwood, J.L. and S.L. Pimm. 1999. When does restoration succeed? Pages 338-362 in E. Weiher and P. A. Keddy, eds. Ecological assembly rules: Perspectives, advances, retreats. Cambridge University Press. NY. USA.

This page last updated May 9, 2003.
Copyright UC Regents. All rights reserved.