A Summer along 4mc

This topic submitted by on 2/14/03. Additions were last made on Saturday, March 1, 2003. Section: Blaisdell/Wolfe

Summer Along Four Mile Creek

Dear Sarah, Majida, and Melissa,

Comments in Black are from CW and in blue are from MB
We have read your proposal and consider it to be a promising start that is not complete enough to quite fulfill the requirement of a full proposal. One more round of conversation and review of your submission should make this better for you as well as for those who hear about it and those who evaluate it. We like the idea of melding scientific research with childrenÕs books and look forward to reading the finished products. I think the idea of aiming the book at a "young adult" audience will better support the complexity of the ideas you will be conveying. The overarching problem is that it is too ambitious and not focused enough Ð both in terms of the number of research sites and the number of tests. Thus we are asking you to revise your proposal and resubmit it to this Web site no later than midnight on Thursday February 20.

Your hypothesis that the stream will reflect human intervention is too broad and obvious. It would be better to have more specific hypotheses, say, that the fish index will be impoverished down stream relative to upstream due to agricultural and urban runoff. You also need to do a better job discussing the relevance of your questions in the broader context. Thus, although you have an impressive array of literature you donÕt really discuss how it relates to larger questions. [The sources you suggest is why I think you need a young adult audience. You want to be sure that there is a comfortable harmony between the research you do and the way you tell about that research.]

You have too many research sites and they are not well selected. Get out the map and have a look at the river. It doesnÕt go through Hamilton. If you have a car we would be tempted to pick one site upstream near the dam at Acton Lake, one right before Oxford, and one downstream from Oxford. You may be confusing the drinking water treatment plant from the sewage treatment plant downstream. [Sensibly, the City of Oxford takes our drinking water out before it puts the wastewater in!] The coal plant isnÕt right on the water. Two or three sites are plenty. As for measurers, again you are proposing to do too much. The fish index seems relevant and could easily tie into the interests of the grandchildren in the stories. Finally, your time line is pretty aggressive. Think realistically about how you will accomplish your goals.

This is a good framework for the project and I am sure the development will lead you to wonderful adventures and discoveries. We just want to be sure that we get the scale of the project right so that it can be done well in the time we have. You have so much it seems possible that the project will become frustrating to complete in the time available. LetÕs try to simplify the number of sites and measures and deepen the thought given to the measures of water quality and habitat health. If after considering this carefully among yourselves you are convinced that the plan you had is still the one you want I think we can be talked into it. Just take one more round of discussion and look back over the plan. ChrisÕs comments about the sites are important. Best wishes.

Return to Main Article