June 2001 Issues Online June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 December 2006 October 2006 August 2006 June 2006 April 2006 February 2006 December 2005 October 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 December 2004 October 2004 August 2004 June 2004 April 2004 February 2004 December 2003 October 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 February 2003 December 2002 October 2002 August 2002 June 2002 April 2002 February 2002 December 2001 October 2001 August 2001 June 2001 April 2001 February 2001 December 2000 October 2000 August 2000 June 2000 April 2000 February 2000 December 1999 October 1999 August 1999 June 1999 April 1999 February 1999 December 1998 October 1998 August 1998 June 1998 April 1998 February 1998 December 1997 October 1997 August 1997 June 1997 April 1997 February 1997 December 1996 October 1996 August 1996 June 1996 April 1996 February 1996 December 1995 October 1995 August 1995 June 1995 April 1995 February 1995 December 1994 October 1994 August 1994 June 1994 April 1994 February 1994 December 1993 October 1993 August 1993 Select any issue from the menu in this bar.

Small Streams Big on Cleanup

Creek advocates have argued for years that putting even the tiniest creek underground is a bad idea. Now there is new science to back up their voices. A National Science Foundation study just published in the journal Science reports that small streams do more than their fair share of work when it comes to filtering pollutants.

Researchers found that small streams can remove significant amounts of nitrogen. Nitrogen - in runoff from fertilizers or byproducts of car exhaust - can cause algal blooms and eutrophication in estuaries or other large bodies of water. "Small streams get first crack at most non-point-source pollution because there are so many miles of small stream for each mile of large stream or river," explains Bruce Peterson, one of the researchers. "In addition, small streams remove nitrogen much more quickly because they are shallow. Most biological removal in small streams is by the stream bottom organisms. Where the water is shallow, these organisms have ready access to the nutrients in the water; where the water is deep, as in larger rivers, the nutrients must travel much farther before they are taken up." Creek advocates aren't surprised by the findings. Says the Urban Creeks Council's Carole Schemmerling, "We've been pointing this out for a long time. About a year ago, a New York Times article reported that the Mississippi River is so heavily polluted that it can only be cleaned by restoring the smaller tributaries. Those smaller streams-if preserved and restored-can clean up the inorganic and organic pollutants that flow into the river. Saving these small streams is the only way to approach cleanup of a large body of water." Peterson says land-use policies need to reflect the important role of small streams. "Remember that streams should function as part of an integrated landscape. If you put nitrogen fertilizer on a lawn or field, most of it should be retained in the crops or grass and soils, if you don't add too much or at the wrong time. Then the nutrients encounter a riparian zone of dense vegetation, and this zone also retains nutrient. Finally, the remainder enters the small streams, which in their natural or restored condition continue the removal process. If we neglect restoration and good management of the land and riparian zones, it is unlikely that the streams can do the whole job."

Contacts: Bruce Peterson: (508) 289-7484; Carole Schemmerling: (510) 540-6669 LOV

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project