Doesn’t everyone revere Mother Nature? Granted, some might not be as love-struck as me, but I suspect most AFS members appreciate Mother’s ability to get things right. It was while reading about the science and policy of habitat conservation (protection and restoration) that I began to sense a theme, or at least imagine one. If this is simply my imagination, I’ll gladly settle for starting a trend. This idea leapt to me while I was reviewing a manuscript by Bilkovic et al. (in press) from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Their work on “living shorelines” summarized the growing interest in protecting and restoring our coasts using natural materials—native vegetation, local substrates, etc. At the same time, I am hearing more about “nature-based infrastructure” as an ecosystem tool in FY16 federal budgets. The theory is that old-school “hard” approaches such as vertical seawalls, concrete revetments, and caged-wire gabions simply don’t serve societal needs as well as “soft” systems like a mix of plants and sediments that offer a more natural slope and texture. Plus, soft environs can migrate in response to whatever Mother Nature has in store for us in the coming decades. See, I didn’t even mention relative sea-level rise or Hurricane Katrina, but you know what I’m talking about. We need to be resilient, and nature offers some obvious suggestions when based on the best science, when considering management applications, and when developing policy. This concept extends well beyond living shorelines, which are most often used to mitigate unavoidable habitat losses associated with federal construction permits in wetlands or waterways. Tobey et al. (2010) traces nature-based approaches back more than a decade. Now, this potential trend is gaining momentum. Among practitioners, the titles and approaches vary but the basic ingredients are consistent—diverse, perhaps non-regulatory, often interdisciplinary, usually less expensive, applicable at multiple geographic scales, and usually embraced after the requisite challenges from traditionalists. Examples abound, differentiated by a matter of intensity or time. Nature can work in a backyard, during the spring melt, in a watershed or basin, or in a Great Lake or reservoir. An action on land may have intended affects downhill, downwind, or downstream. If we’re patient, we’ll see natural solutions to many problems facing our fish and fisheries. No doubt, human intervention can hasten our progress, but it seems rare that an exotic solution (non-native in any respect) meets expectations over any timeframe. Of course, that axiom doesn’t hold true if your goal is to grow a lush marsh or increase angling opportunities, with secondary concern about whether those plants are invasive or the fish are competing with native strains. As I’ve already stated, I lean toward Mother Nature, not toward artificial. Opportunities abound. How about creating special management areas with reduced fishing pressure so fish populations can get a head start on recovery from overharvest or some catastrophic event; setting instream flow standards to let a river provide its ecosystem services; planting shellfish “gardens” to clean waters and perhaps provide an occasional meal; or encouraging consumption of nasty invasives like lionfish (which provided a nice dinner for many at the AFS Governing Board meeting in Savannah, Georgia, back in March)? Could Asian carp kabobs or snakehead sushi be far behind? In my mind, those “natural” alternatives are better than labor-intensive, structure-oriented, enforcement-driven catch restrictions or simply just worth trying rather than settling for more of the same. Now, I know structure is the basis of most fish habitat and stocking is a basic tenet of fishery management, but we can build natural habitat and stock with native species. Why make our jobs more difficult than they are? A common thread through these ideas is common sense. Why not rely more on nature’s powers rather than pinning our hopes a bit too much on technology and wizardry? I’m certainly not against advances across all natural resource fields, but sometimes the costs don’t seem to support the results, or should I say, projected results, since our hopes are often elusive. For example, when envisioning the New Jersey shore post-Superstorm Sandy, why would we rely overly on habitat restoration (costly and oftentimes requiring decades for acceptable results) when protection of existing habitat might retain the same ecosystem services we hope to mimic through restoration, creation, or some other approach? Especially when the logic behind protection was made evident by every wildlife refuge, salt marsh, and dune system? When we see those areas absorb storm surge and protect at-risk neighborhoods, why not invest in protecting nature rather than attempting to reinvent it? Let’s give natural, oftentimes simpler, solutions a fair chance. Whether instream flows, living shorelines, native plants, or another nature-tested option, let us consider them before jumping to an alternative that may not be a good or cost-effective solution over the long haul. REFERENCES Bilkovic et al. (in press). The role of living shorelines as estuarine habitat conservation strategies. In: Special Issue on “Conserving Coastal and Estuarine Habitats.” Thomas E. Bigford and TyAnn Lee, editors. Coastal Management. Tobey, J., P. Rubinoff, D. Robadue Jr., G. Ricci, R. Volk, J. Furlow, and G. Anderson. 2010. Practicing coastal adaptation to climate change: lessons from integrated coastal management. Coastal Management 38(3): 317–335. Policy Column Tom Bigford, Policy Director, [email protected]
