Forum:
It has been said that "nine-tenths of the hell being raised in the world is
well-intentioned." While it is necessary to stray into uncharted waters
little by little in order to learn, the "field" of ecosystem restoration is
clogged with cases of "professionals" operating out of their depth.
The first rule (for all science, all thinking) is what I call the Margaret
Mead dictum: "The most important thing is to know what you don't know."
The first rule of any kind of watershed restoration is "Start at the top and
go all the way to the bottom."
While I would be delighted to see ditch-diggers convert to restoration
ecologists, I have been, well, shall we say "surprised" at the number of
biologists and even ecologists who wade right in, waving their business
cards (presumably to dry the fresh ink?) and attempting to do it all based
upon a mixture of just enough knowledge, just enough certification, and just
enough "experience" to walk on water.
What is astonishing is that there should be any "failures" at all. Once
site conditions are available and the right number and balance of propagules
(from inoculum to seeds) are introduced--by natural agency, human
intervention, or both, how can failures occur? It must take some seriously
determined effort to mess things up. I should know, I did so for fifteen
years before I ever even started to "succeed." (Actually, restoration
ecologists are largely bystanders who reset conditions that accelerate, not
create, ecological processes.)
Perhaps it would be useful to list, from this huge list (well over 6,000
subscribers the last I heard a few years ago) the various kinds of failed
projects and the reasons for them?
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:49 PM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Follow the Silt -Why Stream Restoration Projects Fail
Follow the Silt -Why Stream Restoration Projects Fail
By CORNELIA DEAN, NYTimes. 6/24/08 Science Times section, Page 1.
Correction Appended, (Excerpt instructions below on how to get rest of
article courtesy Herpdigest)
LITITZ, Pa. - Dorothy J. Merritts, a geology professor at Franklin &
Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., was not looking to turn hydrology on its
ear when she started scouting possible research sites for her students a few
years ago.
But when she examined photographs of the steep, silty banks of the West
Branch of Little Conestoga Creek, something did not look right. The silt was
laminated, deposited in layers. She asked a colleague, Robert C. Walter, an
expert on sediment, for his opinion.
"Those are not stream sediments," he told her. "Those are pond sediments."
In short, the streamscape was not what she thought.
That observation led the two scientists to collaborate on a research project
on the region's waterways. As they reported this year in the journal
Science, their work challenges much of the conventional wisdom about how
streams in the region formed and evolved. The scientists say 18th- and
19th-century dams and millponds, built by the thousands, altered the water
flow in the region in a way not previously understood.
They say that is why efforts to restore degraded streams there often fail.
Not everyone agrees, but their findings contribute to a growing debate over
river and stream restoration, a big business with increasing popularity but
patchy success.
Many hydrologists and geologists say people embark on projects without fully
understanding the waterways they want to restore and without paying enough
attention to what happens after a project is finished.
For the rest of the article go to
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/science/24stream.html?ref=science
or send a request to us for a text only version.
