Stream Restoration News for May 5, 2008

A new study out in the journal Ecological Applications found that a stream restoration project increased denitrification in one stream reach in Baltimore, MD. Although I know some of the authors, and they are very optimistic about the potential of stream restoration to aid in removal of excess nitrogen, I have a couple of problems with this study. First, they compare denitrification rates following restoration to those in an unrestored reach downstream--they didn't measure denitrification before the stream was restored so they have no way to know if restoration actually increased denitrification rates in that reach, just that they are higher than in a reach presumed to be similar to the prerestoration conditions. This is a common problem in studies of stream restoration (including my own) because it is rare for researchers to hear about projects well enough ahead of time to collect pre-restoration data. Even if stream restoration did increase denitrification at this particular site, this is still one stream restoration project in one reach in one stream in Maryland and no other published study that I'm aware of has seen similar results, while several have seen no significant increase in denitrification. Until there is more evidence, I still think better strategies involve keeping the nitrogen out of the stream in the first place.

I don't think I mentioned it last week, but on Thursday, May 1 all salmon fishing was banned on the US Pacific coast. This obviously has huge financial implications, as well as suggesting that one of the consistently best organized and funded, popularly supported, massive restoration projects in the country is not working because of factors that are not well understood.

In other salmon news, the leaders of four American Indian tribes and federal hydropower regulators on Friday celebrated a landmark agreement intended to improve fish runs in the Pacific Northwest, just days before a deadline for a new regional salmon recovery plan

Projected reductions in the Poudre River's flow through Fort Collins, CO in a federal analysis of a new reservoir took both sides of the debate by surprise A good summary of the pros and cons listed in the draft In an op-ed, a civil engineer complains about "biased coverage" of the controversy, taking what feels like a cognitively dissonant approach, advocating for restoration downstream of the reservoir as well as for construction of the reservoir. But I guess both approaches are good for the civil engineering business.

Wetlands restoration money will go to help reduce flooding in Austin, TX

American Rivers blog has a post about post-restoration monitoring and the herring warden