Habitat Rehab

Habitat restoration is one of the most important challenges facing conservationists today. Without adequate habitat, endangered species can’t be recovered. Many human activities require restoration as well. Fully functioning wetland systems can provide flood control and clean drinking water. How does the process of habitat restoration work?

Restored coastal marsh, where dikes were removed to
allow the sea to once again access the land

The first step, as in medicine, is “First, do no harm.” A site evaluation will determine exactly what needs to be done to restore what once was. Noting current conditions establishes a baseline for measuring success of the project. It might involve stabilizing a feature immediately, such as an eroding stream bank. After figuring out what needs to be done, the next step is figuring out how to do it.

In many cases, conservationists will use a reference site similar to what is being restored to determine plants and other features. Plants will influence what kind of animals will begin using the site, but the land and water on the site will determine what plants can live there.

Live willow stake planted to reforest
a former pastureland

A lot of times, restoration work is more than simply replacing plants and animals that lived on a site before people came in and messed it up. A site I monitored in Washington had once been a thriving salmon stream with a wide flood plain. 19^th century farmers drained the area by straitening the stream to allow water to flow in and out faster. They also cleared the trees. Fast forward to the 21^st century, and we’ve figured out that the stream needs to be slowed and shaded. Over a period of several years, the curves were put back in the stream and thousands of new trees and shrubs were planted. Fixing the stream required building temporary dams, removing fish by hand, and using heavy equipment to excavate a new stream bed at just the right depth and slope.

Ohop Creek after being restored to its twisted ways

After work has been completed, the site must be monitored for success. There should be some kind of measurable goal, and even if the restoration fails it can be a lesson for future attempts. The site I mentioned was restored for salmon habitat, and while it will take a few years for trees to begin cooling the water temperature, it has been under constant observation since work began. Several times a year, conservation groups involved in the restoration work check water levels, tree survival, how many salmon are spawning, and what kinds of animals are using the habitat. All of this is checked against initial observations from before the project began.

This prairie, currently a restoration work in progress,
was a field of weeds a few years ago

My work with habitat restoration has been monitoring (documenting wildlife and animal signs, as well as plant survival rates), site maintenance, and invasive species removal. The work is hard and sometimes conditions are brutal, but I find it to be very rewarding.

In many cases, restored habitat is second rate compared to what it once was and what nature has provided. It’s not for a lack of trying, but nature is a much better architect of natural features than what man could ever hope to be. But it’s better than nothing.