The Chesapeake Bay Program has produced a new report, Thresholds in the Recovery of Eutrophic Coastal Ecosystems, showing thresholds and negative feedback loops lead to surprisingly slow progress in improved water quality The idea of legacy effects is one that's on the minds of people in all areas of restoration ecology, but biogeochemical feedback loops are not usually considered.
Another Bay story: The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service recently awarded a $500,000 Conservation Innovation Grant to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and several partners to develop a "nutrient neutral fund," tentatively named the Chesapeake Clean Water Fund, patterned after existing voluntary carbon markets My concerns about this type of program usually have to do with what sorts of projects get credit. In other words, while upgrading wastewater treatment clearly reduces nitrate loading, there is next to no evidence supporting the idea that channel manipulations in the name of stream restoration have any effect on nutrient loading.
A case for preservation over restoration, and not building new dams while tearing down old, on the Poudre River, CO Money can buy many things, sometimes including buying your river back. But it seems to make a heck of a lot more sense to just keep it in the first place.
Residents of Riverview, New Brunswick are unhappy with plans to restore the Petitcodiac River
Ecorover has some great pictures of mine tailings and remediation/restoration along Silver Bow Creek near Butte, MT
Once the national leader in dam construction, Wisconsin is now the leader in dam removal
Growing native plants for revegetation in Yolo County, CA
More about brook trout restoration in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, courtesy of R and R Flyfishing blog
Salmon success in Canada's only desert
Profile of "Riparian Restoration Guru" Bill Zeedyk
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment