The question as to whether or not salt marshes should be restored to their original states is a tricky. While on the surface it may seem ideal to use our powers of technology for good and to bring back what once was, I believe that there are serious flaws in the rationale.

I believe that removing non-indigenous species that have started to grow naturally and replacing them with indigenous species that no longer grow naturally is futile when regarding the fundamentals of the issues. Salt marshes became invaded and destroyed by human intervention. Therefore, human intervention caused the problems in the first place, and although the intentions this time are for constructive purposes, this isn’t to say that results can be certain.

The best thing that people can do now is to once again let nature takes it’s course. The ecosystems that exist in salt marshes are comprised of an incredibly network of saline levels, food chains, and other ecofactors. While experts may be on the project, human logic and experimentation is very fallible. By trying to artificially recreate an ecosystem, humans are likely to aggravate the situation. On the other hand, by letting the new, non-indigenous species thrive naturally, the marshes will rebuild themselves. They will not be the same environments that were once there, but they will be natural nonetheless.

Think of this metaphor. The United States is made up almost entirely of immigrants and decedents of immigrants who came to this country over the past 300 years. Very few Americans are actually “indigenous”. No one will argue that we should try to replace the non-indigenous Americans with Native Americans. It has been generally accepted that there is a new meaning to what it means to be “American”. The same logic should be applied to salt marshes.

Deciding whether or not the restoration of salt marshes is necessary is no difficult task. There are many different factors that must be taken into account when trying to come to a conclusion. While restoring marshes is a nice idea in theory, there are many components that could cause detrimental affects to the area. First of all, human intervention goes against the natural process of life. Leaving a recolonization of non-native plants to grow is allowing nature to follow its path. This will allow a new culture of plants to thrive and leaves room for various species to develop and expand. Overtime, nature will be able to heal itself without the need for humans. While it may be believed that because humans have caused this destruction, they should be the ones to clean it up, I don’t think this is necessarily true. Just as nature was present before humans, it will be present afterwards as well. It is not our job to continue to pursue the region but instead our job to allow time and avoid interaction.

Attempting a restoration of a marsh with native plants calls for many different factors to be taken under consideration. Restoring tidal conditions, balancing salt levels and introducing new species are only a few of the many dilemmas that must be addressed. While some species may have gone extinct due to salt marsh destruction, other species have thrived with these new changes. If native animals are reintroduced, it may be unlikely that the two will be able to coexist. Who is to decide which animals matter more?  Also if restoration does take place, human intervention cannot be for a short time period. Instead, it would take years to properly track and insure that the restoration is going to as plan. Often times, these long term projects lose interest and funding to continue on. If the project is only half completed, the effects could be detrimental and leave the environment in a worse state than before.

I think that instead of human intervention after the fact, we should instead focus on preventative actions. Although these preventative actions may not help in cases like the destruction that Hurricane Sandy caused, it can help in other ways. Most destruction is due to human interaction rather than from natural causes and there are numerous ways to keep our impact minimal.

Human actions have led to many changes in the ecosystem. One negative effect of our actions has been the destruction of salt marshes. As much of a mess we seem to have made of our planet, it is still in our best interest to try and preserve and restore it by any means necessary. In the case of salt marshes, however, it may be more beneficial to not put our efforts into restoring them.

Because of their destruction, many salt marshes have low salt levels. In these cases phragmites are often found to be growing where spartina grass would normally be. Bill Sheehan’s quote, “Phragmites, its green most of the time, and it ain’t condos,” is referring to the fact that they are naturally occurring plants just like spartina. The phragmite grass has grown naturally and provided many benefits for the ecosystem, so in Sheehan’s opinion it wouldn’t make sense to destroy phragmites to replace the grass with spartina. is reference to condos means we didn’t pave over and construct something else to develop the area. This is important because it shows how the appearance of phragmite grass means a natural change is beginning at the salt marshes, and it is not necessarily a bad one. This will most certainly be a slow proess, but at least in Sheehan’s eyes we’re letting nature take its course. Though spartina is very beneficial for the salt marshes, phragmite grass provides a habitat for various fish to live in and is utilized by different bird species. If humans choose to restore the salt marshes they would have to remove and destroy much of the phragmite grass. This would lead to several species of fish dying off because of the destruction of their habitat and might effect bird migration as well. On top of that there is no certainty that the spartina will grow back, and even if it does it may not make up for the damages caused by removing the phragmite.

When we visited the Salt Marsh in Jamaica Bay earlier this month we saw the destruction caused by Super Storm Sandy. The storm left the salt marshes in ruins, and restoring them to how they were before hand would take years of time and close observation. The storm happened without human interference so its clear to see that destruction of salt marshes can occur naturally anyway. The time and effort needed to restore the salt marshes to their natural structure, filled with spartina grass, is not worth it.

Attempts to restore salt marshes will only be a temporary remedy for the problem. The proper remedy is time; with time the marshes will heal themselves. For now our best option is to leave the salt marshes alone and let the phragmites and spartina grasses grow together. Doing this will allow the species that rely on phragmite grass to remain unharmed while the spartina grass can naturally grow and restore the salt marshes. This remedy is more permanent and less harmful than trying to restore the salt marshes ourselves.

When being asked if we should restore salt marshes, or any natural habitat, the instinctive answer is “Yes!” It’s relatively unanimous among us that the environment is of great importance and we should be working to preserve and maintain it. However, in a political and economic climate like ours, an answer like that is not easily achievable. There are many bureaucratic hurdles to jump through, policy and budget wise. Just a few weeks, the nation was embroiled in a partisan shutdown, preventing employees from accessing their salaries. It’s safe to say that in the government cannot even keep itself running, there is likely a lot of red tape to get through regarding environmental matters. Additionally, when these situations are being discussed and debated for funding, etc. many of the studies government officials are faced with are highly skewed, either portraying cataclysmic conditions, or downplaying a situation to the point it hardly seems relevant. The lack of unbiased information lends itself to misguided investments and poor outcomes.

In 2007, the Government Accountability Office released a report in order to address and resolve issue marsh restoration projects were facing: “The reviewers came to several conclusions, including that increasing costs delayed the completion of projects and that without an integrated monitoring system they could not determine if goals and objectives were being met.” This is an extremely problematic conclusion to come to, considering the amount of work and funding that goes into these projects; it is imperative for there to be tangible results. For example, Phragmites removal requires “bulldozing, burning, and using an herbicide such as glyphosate.” To add another problem, such herbicides “cannot be said to be good for the ecosystem.” It seems counterintuitive to restore a natural environment at the expense of the ecosystem.

Other marsh restoration projects have also faced problems, such as the attempt to eliminate S. alterniflora and replace it with S. foliosa. Adding nitrogen to the soil to aid in S. foliosa growth also aids S. alterniflora growth, making such an attempt futile at best. There are so many factors that go into restoration, and these factors must be in sync for it to be successful. Animal grazing, water flow, soil nutrients, salinity, marsh restoration is contingent upon all of these working in conjunction. There are simply too many things to be accounted for and often times some of these things not accounted for when planning, leading to unsuccessful endeavors and attempts.

Furthermore, the existing marshes filled with Phragmites are not necessarily bad, or considered “ecologically useless.” In fact, they are “functioning, productive systems that contribute to aquatic food webs and provide habitat for fishes, shrimps, crabs, and birds.” They are completely functional in their own regard and are “preferable to paved-over development,” a sentiment shown in Bill Sheehan’s statement, “Phragmites. It’s green most of the time, and it ain’t condos.” It’s almost bigoted to completely disallow them because they are not of the same order as Spartina. The saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” and in this case, it ain’t broke-just different.

When I initially considered the destruction of salt marshes, I instinctively leaned towards advocating for restoration —  returning a degraded habitat to a healthy condition similar to the way it was, prior to being disturbed by human development. The process would involve altering the elevation and hydrology of a marsh, planting desired species, removing invasive species, and, finally, hoping that other marsh organisms lost will begin to reappear on their own. Without further knowledge of restoration tactics, I felt this option would be the quickest way to protect and nurture marshes that had been heavily degraded, allowing for the re-introduction of vital natural systems previously abundant, such as nursery habitats for fish and crustaceans, and protection from coastal flooding and erosions. Yet, little did I know, restoration efforts have had mixed success.

Bill Sheehan’s quote — “Phragmites, it’s green most of the time, and it ain’t condos” — effectively showcases this complexity within choosing whether or not to restore salt marshes. While Phragmites is technically an invasive species — a tall reed that has taken over many low-salinity marshes on the East Coast — destroying the Phragmites by bulldozing, burning, or using a herbicide, to physically re-plant Spartina, may counterintuitively result in the continued loss of marshes. As Sheehan notes, the Phragmites hold a value of its own. Phragmites marshes are functioning, productive systems that provide a safe habitat for numerous species of  fish, shrimp, crab, and birds, and contribute to the aquatic food web. Thus, before deciding to eradicate the invasive Phragmites, it is critical that we consider the benefits of having the plant naturally regulate itself in marshland, as well as the possible repercussions of our well-intentioned actions.

Other problems that have arisen are the time-consuming and costly details associated with successful restoration of indigenous vegetation. Specific salinity levels, nitrogen levels, elevation,  and tidal flow are just a few key components in need of review before attempts at replanting can be made. Keeping all of this newfound information in mind, I now believe that when it comes to the question of restoring marshlands, the answer lies in research and compromise. WIth each marsh comes its own set of attributes and issues. It is thus vital for scientists to thoroughly research a marsh, outlining the predicted repercussions of all suggested restorative efforts. In certain cases, for example, replanting may not be beneficial to the marsh, and allowing it to flourish naturally without human interference may be the better solution.

I found it quite interesting that statistics have proven that, over time, a natural community returns after restoration. Inter-species relationships and food web connections are re-established, involving multiple dimensions of relations including competition, mutualism, and parasite-host relationships. Accounting for not only the aforementioned characteristics, but also the livelihood of all the marsh’s current organisms, researchers can then begin to assess whether or not certain restorative procedures should be enacted. While such findings do point to the success of restoration, a closer look reveals the success’ dependency on prior research and understanding of the marsh’s conditions, a combination of both restorative efforts and natural processes, time, and most importantly, heightened dialogue on the importance of protecting salt marshes and re-assessing our actions and the impacts they have on our natural environments.

After visiting a salt marsh and witnessing first hand the destruction caused by Super Storm Sandy, I would immediately agree that salt marsh restoration is crucial in maintaing the unique features of such a productive eco-system.  However, Bill Sheehan’s quote, “Phragmites. It is green most of the time, and it ain’t condos,” implies the opposite. Phragmites might not be as ecologically productive as spartina grass, but the phragmites is still more useful to the environment than paving over the salt marsh to create condominiums.

Due to the low salt levels of many salt marshes,  phragmites is growing in environments where spartina grass is usually found.  Nonetheless, phragmites provides habitat for many fishes and is utilized by many bird species.  In the short term, destroying the phragmites and restoring the marsh would mean a loss of wetlands. In addition, the spartina grass might not grow back, and other native species are often killed during phragmites removal.  Certainly, this kind of restoration sounds more destructive than effective.

Restoring a salt marsh is complicated, but I do not think the only options are maintaining non-native plants or creating apartment buildings, as Bill Sheehan mentions.  When restored, a natural community returns to the marsh and food webs are re-established.  Restoring a marsh is possible, important, and does have benefits.  However, this work needs to be done by a group of experts who are invested in the completion of the project.  The experts, whose motivation should be to improve the environment,  would  hopefully ensure that the work that was done did not further harm the salt marsh.  The work will be slow, but the final product will have a positive impact on the eco-system.  This type of restoration is effective, as opposed to bulldozing the phragmites or killing the plant with herbicide.

There is a second quality of phragmites that Sheehan does not mention, but that would probably impact his favorable view of phragmites.  In connection to our conversation in class about weeds, phragmites, while a productive plant, is growing like a weed. This does not mean the plant is undesirable, but it does mean that it is growing uncontrollably, in non-native environments.  Phragmites might be useful right now, but the long term effects of the plant in areas it does not belong could be harmful to the environment.  Phragmites does need to be contained in order for it to continue to be a productive element in the eco-system.  Anything in large quantities posses trouble for the environment.

Bill Sheehan is correct when he says that phragmites is more useful than condos, but salt marsh estuaries, with both spartina and phragmites grass is even better than just phragmites. Restoration of the marsh with native plants is a must.

I think that the recolonization of non-native plants would be preferable rather than an attempt at a restoration of marsh with native plants depending on the case study. If the ecosystem is not too imbalanced, then millions of dollars don’t have to be wasted on something that might not work out. In other words, if the marsh is functioning properly and producing enough biodiversity, we don’t need to recolonize the marsh with native plants. However, if  massive invasions of particular species like Phragmites australis are inflicting environmental costs, then we could think about intervening.

Also, I agree with Alex’s perspective in addressing the bigger problem. We should first focus on fixing the origin of the problems, or the human actions that made these changes in salt marsh ecosystem. For example, we need to stop the use of chemical fertilizers that pour into storm runoff, causing the marshes to have the excess of nutrients. Additionally, we need to target the sewage that flows into waterways to prevent eutrophication, or “the process by which a body of water acquires a high concentration of nutrients, especially phosphates and nitrates”, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. We need to stop the human actions that cause the cascade of smaller problems like algal blooms and the dissolving concentrations of oxygen in marshes. Only after doing so, should we target the smaller problems; we could possibly try to restore the marshes that have long-term economic and environmental damages associated with the human actions affecting the marshes.

We don’t need to try to restore marshes that will naturally take care of itself. Temporary  artificial marshes will eventually turn back to natural marshes. For instance, Hurricane Sandy breached the East and West Ponds of Jamaica Bay, making the artificially freshwater ponds higher in salinity. They can naturally return to being saltwater marshes; although the migratory birds won’t have a place to stay. The marshes should not be restored when the pros of letting them be outweigh the cons. On a different note, the government needs to understand that restoration of marshes isn’t as simple as it sounds instead of placing a blanket law, since the the restoration project could damage the marshes even further; the project is risky since we don’t know its outcome.