Speaking Your Mind
Fundamentally Flawed?

“Re-establishing sustainable native plant growth on drastically disturbed soils in harsh environments” at FHWA’s Flowery Trail Scenic By-way, WA.

Acknowledging the Elephant in the Living Room

By some accounts, the reclamation native seeding industry is fundamentally flawed. To the casual observer, at least, any industry that can experience 85% “disappointing” results must appear to have some major room for improvement. At times, even that 15% estimate of success is under fire, despite the vast amount of knowledge that has been accumulated from years of research on the life and times of native plant species by smart and dedicated individuals.

On a recent statewide review of approximately 60 reclamation sites, costing a King’s ransom to plant and seed, the following insight was volunteered: “Where there was irrigation, inappropriate plant species were growing; where there was no irrigation, nothing was growing”. Such an assessment could well apply to much of the seeded acreage undertaken throughout our 12-State Western U.S. region.

I recall sitting in on a well-attended Contractor Forum, scheduled just before the closing ceremony of the 1997 IECA conference in Nashville, TN. This forum addressed the ins and outs of bidding on reclamation seeding contracts. After 90 minutes of lively discussion, we broke up with a startling and discouraging consensus: that the contract winning “low bid” invariably turns out to become the most expensive route to implementing a seeding project! Obviously, all is not well in Denmark.

The Challenge Defined

At the outset, some definitional caveats should be made. “Reclamation seeding” means restoring disturbed land to the natural vegetative state that existed before it was disturbed. It is the challenge to “re-establish sustainable native plant growth on drastically disturbed soils in harsh environments” that we are concerned with. This translates into attempting to grow native plants on steep slopes of what is often decomposed granite rock in desert conditions.

Hydroseeding at high altitude on steep slopes at Cripple Creek Mine (Victor, Colorado).

Such conditions include blast-furnace heat in the summer, icy wind over snow in the winter, only 6”-18” of annual precipitation, and much of that coming from snow melt. “Success” is defined as a sustainable blend of diversified native shrub, forb and grass plant community that mirrors the vegetation coverage on adjacent undisturbed areas. Admittedly, this is a tall order by any standard.

The good news is that there are reclamation seeding practitioners successfully re-establishing native plants on tough sites, and on a consistent basis. The weak performance at most of the 85%-90% failing projects has more to do with erroneous design and/or dishonorable implementation, than with the severity of the acknowledged challenge.

Design Shortcomings

Implementing the “Growing Soil™” technologies on a heap leach pad in a harsh environment (Mojave, CA). Hydroseeding is often unfairly maligned as a failure-prone seeding technique. In reality, lackluster performance is caused by failing to re-establish a functioning soil food web in the seed bed.

So where are we going wrong? Part of the problem stems from a lack of awareness of fundamental technologies that have proven successful across time at jump-starting the re-establishment of native plant species on disturbed soils. There are those who plow on with “tried and failed” agronomic practices, blaming Mother Nature’s lack of cooperation for bringing them lackluster introduced grasses interspersed with weeds, if they bother to monitor the site at all. Although we all know native species march to a very different drum than, say, introduced plant species, some practitioners persist with utilizing aberrations of agronomic models to grow native plants, using materials and methods more suited to ornamental horticulture and crop farming.

This persistence with “growing carrots in the desert”, notwithstanding the pockets of success attained by practitioners who have oriented their seeding efforts in a variety of ways to mimic Mother Nature, is merely one “inappropriate technology” example of the numerous shortcomings relating to the design phase of a conventional seeding project.

Successful germination of seeded native species after minimal spring rainfall (Mojave, CA).

Plant species selection is another fertile area for weak design, where the utilization of inappropriate plant species and inappropriate ancillary soil amendments dooms the project at the outset. In addition, because there is little understanding of the “big picture”, of what is required to set the stage for the successful re-establishment of site-adapted native plants, we unwittingly specify actions that are counter-productive to the ultimate design goals.

For example, the attainment of one short-term goal (say, the wish to establish quick-growing grasses for timely erosion control) will frustrate the attainment of critical longer-term goals such as the establishment of deep-rooted native shrubs. Or agronomic fertilizer will be applied for the purpose of boosting plant/carrots growth, resulting in a runaway weed competition problem and a soil we have unwittingly rendered more sterile than before we blundered into view. Or wood fiber mulch and/or straw will be blanketed on the slope to “pillow” the impact of raindrops and retain moisture in the soil (good), creating such an imbalance in the C : N ratio to lock up nitrogen (bad) that it’s a wonder anything grows. The practice of adding agronomic fertilizer (misguided) to counter this nitrogen lock-up side effect sends the project into a downward spiral (bad).

“Brains over Bulk” - Lower bulk of Growing Soil Technologies™ seeding materials enabled contractor to boost his productivity by quadrupling the seeding coverage per load at Tamarack Resort, Idaho.

As with treating a patient, the cure may be worse than the cold. The side effect of one action, however successful it may be at achieving an interim objective, has the potential to sabotage the ultimate goal. To carry the analogy a step further, conventional seeding does not even inquire as to what the patient is suffering from. We blindly apply seed and amendments without having a clue as to the soil we are seeding into. “Dirt is dirt” is the mentality, and we pay for such lack of common sense with expensive failures.

Implementation Shortcomings

And finally, a big part of the problem stems from an incredibly dislocated process of implementing even a well-designed reclamation seeding plan.

The industry is permeated by a colorful assortment of individuals, some of whom are, by nature, bent on doing other than what is contained in the contract specifications they agreed to implement, especially where it betters their bottom line. Suffice to say, the implementation contractor should not be acting as your de facto seeding re-designer, though not all follow in this view.

Mother Nature Intolerant of “Weak Links”

In the face of this basket of “design” and “implementation” shortcomings, Mother Nature has unfortunately proven herself to be intolerant of any inattention or “weak links” where reclamation native seeding is concerned. Just as one can’t be “a little pregnant”, one has to be successful on all critical fronts to effectively establish native plants on tough sites. With a flawed design, you’re doomed before you begin. Conversely, the best design and soil amendments in the world are equally ineffective when paired with inappropriate plant species, or dead seed. Can any of you recall when good design, good seed and good soil amendments were ruined by flawed implementation? Given the common understanding that native species are entirely dependent upon healthy microbial communities in the soil for survival, what are we doing to encourage the development of the soil food web?

IECA’s Challenge and What’s Been Done About It

Where it all began: In 1996, after 8 years of product-oriented frustration, ITD hit native plant revegetation paydirt with the implementation of the “Growing Soil™” Technologies at Horseshoe Bend Hill, Idaho.

So returning to the IECA Contractor Forum in Nashville in 1997. As we shuffled to the exit doors, with the surprising consensus determination of “low bid = most expensive” very much on our minds, the words of forum moderator and WCIECA member Ed Kleiner, rang in our ears: “Let’s go back to our regional Chapters and see what we can do about correcting this unfortunate reality”, or words to that effect. For now, popcorn and beer awaited us in the closing ceremony hall.

In the upcoming Summer and Fall newsletters, we (the Royal “we” here, so feel free to send in your views) propose to (a) highlight the varied shortcomings of conventional native plant seeding design, and share innovative seeding technologies that have evolved over the past 10 years that may well improve your chances of seeding success; and (b) bring you some insights into what various parties have done since 1997 to overhaul the “low bid = most expensive” implementation shortcomings of their seeding projects, and how this overhaul has translated into seeding success in the field.

Again, the good news is that sustainable native plant establishment is being successfully accomplished, and on a consistent basis. However, much still needs to be done before this success permeates throughout the seeding industry, sufficient to chip away at that “85% disappointing results” estimate. It is abundantly clear to many of us that the industry has a ways to go to meet the nature and dimension of the challenges at hand.

This article was first printed in the Western Chapter of IECA Newsletter, Winter 2003. Written by Peter McRae, President Quattro Environmental, Inc.

For reprints or for further information, please contact us.

For other articles in this series, check our Articles page.

quattro_spk1_flawed.pdf Click to view this document in Adobe Acrobat® PDF format (1.2MB). Right-click (hold-click in MacOS) and choose Save link as... or Save target as.. to save the file to your hard drive.

Growing Soil™ and Growing Soil Technologies™ are trademarks of Native Plants Alliance.