November 2009Alternative Stream Research began with a small stream that had been "channelized", meaning made into a straight ditch with flat sloped sides, so long ago that most of that alignment was long gone. Streams naturally and inevitably do what is called "meander", meaning wander back and forth. In so doing, they both erode the bed deeper, and build deposits called "bars" because they bar or block former passage. That is what a natural channel is: the accumulation over time of erosion and deposit. The study began as a few photos hoping to typify the character of that and of other streams, the guiding principle being streams as bird habitat.The notion of deliberately studying streams in that way followed observations indicating a lot of problems with the available streams. While presenting a slide show to the regional Audubon Council, another presentation made a major impact. A man who worked for a state agency showed how he had rebuilt a stream from an eroded ditch through a cow pasture. He made particular curves, particular bank forms including trunks of trees and stacks of Junipers, and large rocks for "check dams", covering it all with grass and the cows were to be fenced out. After repeated requests, over evasions, for directions to visit the sites, a trip was made to see his marvels of improvement. Convinced, after much confusion, that the correct locations had been found, it was a first lesson, not in "bioengineering" as that style of stream reconstruction was called, but in fraud. Almost nothing of the lovely banks remained after less than a year, nor more of the check dams than a few larger rocks. Yet the designer was still giving sales lectures about it to do more of it. Inquiry with him produced more evasions and excuses. Much more inquiry produced other sites by other designers and agencies, including Trout Unlimited which never responded, from the national office, the state office, or the local chapter president. More lessons in what seemed a pattern of fraud. So began a nearly frantic search for any indication that any stream reconstruction method was performing as promised -- and paid for. Research including the Internet and especially the promotional articles in every issue then of "Land and Water" magazine, hundreds of letters to public agencies and private companies, the vast majority of which were ignored, resulted in many road trips that included more stream projects accidentally discovered. The four major theorists and practitioners were queried, and their projects were eventually found and photographed. An all-day "executive summary course" by Dave Rosgen was attended (for $15, not a hundred times that, as others would spend, usually at further public expense). His larger textbook was bought and studied, along with the 1996 article in "Catena" that his office sent out. A copy of A View of the River by Luna Leopold, the man whom Rosgen claimed to be following (and by then Emeritus professor at UCLA), was read, reread, outlined, and puzzled over. Not until then, in 2000, was the original website for tostreams.org put online with about 120 photos across the US. There were projects by the four major practitioners, other projects, and topics such as Rip-rap. Trips continued twice a year, amassing about 10,000 photos across 38 states from Georgia to Washington state. The majority of those, however, were never even mounted nor scanned. With over 600 slides online, including a section on streams the way they are without projects, the website was taken down in 2006. People were stealing the photos to use for contrary purposes, the final case being a request to include one in a book of "best management practices" by students at Princeton who clearly had ignored even the webpage where they found it, their book being nothing but a collection of infomercials found by surfing. No record was found of Dave Rosgen ever being sued for his failing projects, in fact advertisements for his continuing miseducation continue now to be sent. Only local streams have been monitored since then, with no photos. Slide film is no longer processed locally, and no other camera has been chosen. The developed film from the last two trips is still in boxes, still in long rolls. So, why this beginning of what may be a new version of that out-of-date website? There have been other developments, including a wave of concern about "the environment" generated not least by Al Gore's worldwide lectures and book. Yet a recent article about the Coastal Redwood forests stated that "thousands of trees" have been put in streams "to provide fish habitat". That is such bullshit! But maybe there is a new opening of minds out there, somewhere, to appeal to with facts. If you are interested in what is true about stream projects, what was true will be again made available, as time allows. Do check back, now, ya'hear? |
Read (no photos yet) previous treatise Meander Mechanism