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.
